"The period of time in which known laws of physics were nonexistent is defined by empirical evidence"
What evidence?
Re:"The Energy Conservation Law doesn’t come from the Big Bang. It preceded realization of that event."
"Conservation of energy applies to current status. Nothing in the law states that it has always been a law. This is where your argument fails."
There is nothing in particular about any single energy transformation that allows energy to either increase, or to diminish. It's always conserved. That means any that any energy that's observed existed infinitely in the past and will continue to do so into the infinite future, else there would be a point where it was not consistent with it's own essence.
Keep in mind that time is an inverse measure of the energy concerned. If energy can be created, or destroyed then it would not be what it once was through a reflection of itself(inverse time)through the transformation. IOWs, A≠A on some arbitrary basis.
Your claim is that A=0, then A=A. All the scientific evidence supports A=A always. You're free to promote your belief, but it contradicts the scientific evidence.
No, I never stated that time equals zero.
Of note—our disagreement is about logic, not about science.
The law of conservation of energy (like the evidence for the Big Bang, which we don’t really need to establish unless your argument includes an assertion that the Big Bang never occurred) is a posteriori knowledge. It is not a priori knowledge. You have proceeded on the assumption that it is a priori, and this is an error.
The inverse relationship between time and energy is known only in an a posteriori sense. And very important—it is not a complete definition of time.
To say “it’s always conserved” is true regarding current observation—that is, no matter how many times we try, we “always” see that energy is conserved. But again, the law of energy conservation is not a priori, so we cannot state that it was true prior to the Big Bang.