Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[The Reality Salesman01]

@Nestor
I happened to be reading Meno today, one the Great Dialogues of Plato, and couldn't help but think that this applied to what we are talking about. I thought I'd change only a couple of the words in the actual text to illustrate the parallel this has with our discussion.
In the actual dialogue, Socrates is examining Menon's proclaimed knowledge of Virtue. He is not asking about examples of things that correlate to virtue, rather, he wants to understand the essence of things that makes them virtuous. Our conversation has been about numbers and whether or not they have some intrinsic value on their own that transcends all things that correlate with them. Socrates offers the example of shapes to illustrate the sort of question he is asking, here's part of the exchange:

---

S: It seems so, but I really want to try to make progress here, for you do understand that
it's going to be like this with everything. If someone asked you about what we were just
talking about: 'what is shape, Meno?' and you told him that it was roundness, and then
he asked you what I just asked - namely, 'is roundness shape or a shape?' - you would
surely tell him it is a shape?
M: I certainly would.
S: That would be because there are other shapes?
M: Yes.
S: And if he went on to ask what they were, you would tell him?
M: I would.
S: The same would go for numbers, if he asked you what they are, and you said it is 1, and
he interrupted by asking, 'is 1 numbers or a number?' You would say it is a number, because
there are other numbers?
M: I would.
S: So what is this one thing to which the term number generally applies? Try to tell me.
For think what it would be like if you responded, like so, to the man who asked you all
these questions about color and number: 'I don't understand what you want, or what you
mean.' He would probably find this incredible and reply: 'you don't understand that I
want to know what these cases have in common?' Even hearing that, is it true you would
still have nothing to say, Meno, if someone asked: 'what is the one thing that applies to
roundness and straightness and all the other things you call shapes, and which is the
same in all of them?'
M: No! Socrates, you answer for me.
S: Now then, let me try to tell you what shape is. See whether you will accept the
following account: shape, let's say, is the one thing that invariably accompanies color.
Does this satisfy you, or do you want to go about defining the term in some other way?
For myself, I would be satisfied if you defined virtue in some such way as this.

---

I started thinking that maybe numbers is the one thing that invariably accompanies truth, and it is truth that is the essence of numbers. The more interesting question seems to be-What is truth? Since numbers alone are not truth, as they can be arranged incorrectly to produce what is both intuitively and demonstrably nonsense, there must be something by which truth is measured. Numbers arranged properly can offer sound conclusions of clarity, but what is it that makes the truth apparent in the numbers? If 1+1 =/=3, why? I believe it is in the nature of existence to be what it is, and lack what it is not. The moment we refer to a "1" that exists, we are acknowledging something about the nature of existence. Whatever this "1" is, it is not anything else, or it could be "2" or "3". It is the nature of existence to be bound by the properties of our existence. Truth is the accurate arrangement of that which exists in reality. 1+1=2 because that is an accurate reflection of the nature of 1 and 2 and how they can be arranged in reality, and we call this arrangement -" truth". Can we say that numbers could produce truth if there were no consistency within the nature of existence? Or is it more accurately said that numbers can only reflect that which is consistent with the nature of existence? And since the nature of our existence is bound within the reality we observe it in, can we say that numbers or truth can exist in any reality in which things exist and there is no consistency? I'm having a hard time investing any likelihood in that being a possibility.