Your logic boils down to the fallacy of special pleading and thus fails. You can't define God into existence by calling him eternal and avoiding the question of where he came from.
> One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal.
That is the only logical choice.
> In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed
No we would not, that an eternal cycle might exist does not imply it can be observed or detected.
> However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe.
Untrue, if it expands out to nothingness, nothingness itself is prime to create a big bang as nothing is not a quantum stable state. The real answer is we don't know.
> So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God).
There's nothing remotely logical about that, you've just invoked special pleading and presumed creation by something is necessary when we in fact know it is not. The universe just is, that's the only logical conclusion we can make from the available evidence. You've dressed up a logical fallacy in set math to perhaps try and make it seem reasonable, but it isn't, it's just bad logic.