I think we should stop talking about this here. Christ is a bad topic for this forum, although in this context it isn't really off topic. If you like we can talk about it further on AAA.Let me just say very directly and without sarcasm, that I really have given alot of time to studying religion, not nearly as much as some, but more than most. I've also kind of lost interest in it. I don't know what your background is, but I think you are incorrect to say that most scriptures point to a direct experience of God according to the four attributes of knowledge. Scriptures point more to the specific problems facing their respective authors at the time they were written. But in the end a successful surviving scripture is just that because it leaves room for a very flexible interpretation - one that allows for the dynamics of social change. and now I've already crossed the line of controversy. (sorry)
The same thing with cosmology. I studied math and physics in college. What you are saying just isn't correct. Why do you need to support your experience of knowledge using pseudo-science? You are bound to lose in that kind of argument, unless you can find a way to measure a "whole body full of light" for example. The light you "see" in knowledge is an emotional/neurological condition. It isn't photons filling your body. As I said in my prevous post which you didn't respond to, according to your quoted 1st law of thermodynamics, energy is finite. If energy was infinite, the universe couldn't exist, at least not according to any known science.
