I'm done after this post, it's clear this is going nowhere.
Conservation of energy behaves the same way as other conservation laws. As long as the total amount of the conserved thing (energy/momentum/etc.) in a system is unchanged the conservation laws are not violated. It doesn't matter if individual portions of the system have more or less of the conserved thing than the system as a whole as long as the total energy/momentum/etc contained within the system remains the same as the initial amount contained within the system. If the universe is a system that came from a zero energy initial state (you can call this nothing or something) and the universe currently contains zero energy expressed as positive and negative values then the 1st law has not been violated. The WMAP data is empirical evidence that the universe is flat, meaning it contains zero total energy. There are mechanisms, such as inflation separating virtual particle pairs, proposed that could cause this division of energy into positive and negative, but the original question from the initial post in this thread is answered by the fact that the universe coming from zero energy doesn't violate the 1st law because the total overall energy in the universe remains zero.
So when I ask you to explain yourself and give evidence you shy away and complain... and you wonder why we don't believe you...
You STILL need to show evidence as to HOW gravity negates energy, just stating it does and hoping that is evidence is nonsensical. Using this logic I can claim that I am superman, and the only evidence I need to make that claim is just to say it. (See how silly this is)
The conservation of energy law specifically states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore according to a naturalist, whom cannot break these laws there can be no origin of energy. Yet as we now know with the BB is that there was such an origin. This is one of those cases where something occurs but for it too occur it would need to break a law of nature, therefore by definition the event is a supernatural event since supernatural things are above natural law.
How does claiming the universe is flat means it has zero total energy... Seems to me that is yet another unsupported claim.
Also you haven't confirmed if you realise that your claim means you are stating that nothing exists, as I said below
"Additionally you do realise that if you claim that no energy exists in the universe at all, then you are claiming that nothing exists. Do you see how absurd such a claim is? As William Lane Craig has put it, (paraphrasing) 'at least I know I exist since if I were to doubt my own existence then who is there to do the doubting? I doubt therefore I am'.
Are you claiming that nothing exists? Since this is the logical follow through of your claims. Does this mean that people should go and commit suicide since they actually don't exist anyway? In fact why do we even have laws of thermodynamics since if energy doesn't exist then there would be no laws to describe energy since it doesn't exist, furthermore why are there laws about matter- ie- Boyles Gas law since if energy doesn't exist then matter also doesn't exist since matter is made up of energy.
A refutation to your claim can be thus.
Premise 1: Gravity is an effect cause by matter
Premise 2: Matter is essentially made of energy
Premise 3: Gravity can be observed to be in effect in the world
Premise 4: Therefore matter exists as the cause of this effect
Premise 5: Therefore energy exists within matter.
Another thing to ponder is what was the initial cause of the creation of the universe?... (oops the universe doesn't exist so I can't call it that, sorry).. If you claim no cause then you are breaking the law of cause and effect."