"The simplest mathematical model for computing the observed properties of the Universe is then flat Euclidean space. This model is infinite, but what we know about the Universe is that it is really big. "

liar liar pants on fire!

The cosmologists who study this are about 10 to the 3rd power smarter than the two of us together and they have and will be fighting about what model of the universe better fits the evidence for a long time. The last I heard, the universe is a finite closed non-Euclidean Hilbert space, but what do I know.

The point is you were talking about energy, not the universe. Where does Ned say that energy is infinite? You quote a MODEL of the universe and then say in distinguished tones, "therefore energy is omnipresent (QED)". Why don't you send your proof on to ole Ned an see what he thinks of it. LOL.

The amount of matter and energy in the universe has to be FINITE. Ironically, if it was infinite or even changing, then it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics which you so dutifully recite. As for ETERNAL, if the universe had a beginning, it can't be eternal, time itself isn't even eternal. Omnipresent? What does that even mean, that a photon of energy is everywhere at the same time? Sorry, you'll have to come up with another theory to explain your spiritual beliefs.

As for scriptural references, I do have lots of good reference books. I even have a copy of the only English translation of the Rig Veda that I know of by the great Wendy O'Flaherty, not to be confused with Wendy O Williams. Lots in there about Soma and Agni, but for the heck of me I can't find anything about the four direct ways of experiencing God. They hadn't even invented Vishnu yet. Better correct that curriculum in your Mahatma 101 course. But please, prove me wrong! Give me a quote at least!

By the way, when you quote somebody, the honorable thing to do is show that you are quoting them and to give the reference, as in: