As I read that, I was reminded of a quote I heard somewhere that goes something like this: "Either what I have just read was so profound that it meant nothing to me, or it actually meant nothing and subsequently sounded profound." But that was just what popped into my mind, forgive me if it sounded rude.

Anyway, where I would take issue is your first two points. You assume that God is reality. Ok, I've heard stranger things. Then you say that knowledge is a model of reality. Ok, all good there.

But then you say that the perfect model of reality *is* reality. For lack of a better word: duh. It's like saying A = B, and B = A, so A = A. IMHO, nothing is accomplished with that statement because you already assume what is required to prove your point. I'm not really arguing your beliefs I guess, just your methods.