No, not hypothesis. It is theory supported by a great deal of evidence.
"As mentioned earlier, neither reason nor evidence can confirm that the energy conservation law existed infinitely into the past.
Reason is sufficient, because there is more than sufficient evidence for the law.
"If you’re getting your information from an apparent physicist...
I do my own physics.
"Reason cannot confirm it—the law... Do you really not understand this concept?
I understand it just fine. In order for your assertion to mean any more than nothing, you must show that energy can be created, or destroyed.
“No, not hypothesis. It is theory supported by a great deal of evidence.”
Guessing and hoping is not evidence.
“Reason is sufficient, because there is more than sufficient evidence for the law.”
But the law you’re using—“energy can neither be created nor destroyed and never could, infinitely into the past”—doesn’t exist.
“I do my own physics.”
That’s good. You seem like a highly knowledgeable individual—doing your own physics is good. But your mistake is to think you can do your own laws of physics.
“I understand it just fine. In order for your assertion to mean any more than nothing, you must show that energy can be created, or destroyed.”
There’s no getting around this fact:
The law of conservation of energy is not self-evident.