Before Big Bang God or Singularity

Your mistake has been the same from the start, that of taking the singularity as a physical object that exists and demanding an explanation of where it came from. I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring it.
If you find me pointing this out insulting, then it's difficult for me to see what I should do. Should I allow you this factual error to avoid hurting your feelings? Surely you can see it from my point of view. Everything down to here is correct. The positive curvature of spacetime can be used to infer the existence of a singularity. Spacetimes with positive curvature (and satisfying certain conditions) contain singularities.I think you might be confusing the mathematical concept of inferring with the physical concept of creating. Hawking is proving a theorem about spacetimes. He is saying that given a general relativistic spacetime with positive curvature, there will be a singularity somewhere in the spacetime. However the curvature didn't "create the singularity".Think of Pythagoras' theorem. Given the properties of a right angled triangle then a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Where a and b are two sides and c is the hypotenuse. However a,b and c didn't "create the triangle".

Your question has no answer. I'm not sure what more we can do. This is wrong. Nothing is known about T=0 or the short period after it. The earliest thing we know is that the universe was expanding and was hot and dense.The reason we know nothing about T=0 is that it is proven that General Relativity has a singularity there and is unreliable.

The other two are correct.The basic picture is that the universe was expanding at T=0+ (to use your terminology). The expansion did not begin at the point, simply we know that the expansion was occuring then and it is the earliest period when we are sure of what was happening. Also this expansion didn't create the universe. Spacetime and gravity were already in existence at this point.Previous to that we don't know what was going on because Hawking and Penrose have proven general relativity is unreliable because there is a singularity. They proved general relativity has a singularity because of properties like spacetime curvature.
However this is a mathematical proof about the structure of general relativity and its predictive capability and not a statement that the curvature created some object called a singularity.Edited by Son Goku, : Expansion.Edited by Son Goku, : Detailing a point I missed.

The universe is in a small, hot and dense state at around 13.7 billion years. It expands from that state and eventually turns into the universe we see today.
Now internet sites and tv documentaries might say differently and will erreoneously claim the universe "came from a signularity" or came from "an infinitely small point", but this is not correct.Instead let's see what an actual cosmological textbook says:To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6: So what Peebles is saying is that the standard model of cosmology (sometimes called the Big Bang theory) describes the universe's early life. It starts at the point when particles were 10^10 times closer to each other than they are on average today. This is roughly 13.7 billion years ago. However it does not start at the beginning of the universe.

I wouldn't quite say there is anybody who believes anything about the period. Most are skeptical of even their own models. However there are those who propose that the universe was large again prior to the hot and dense state. For example Randall(Harvard), Turok(Cambridge), Steinhardt(Princeton).

There is no experimentally confirmed model of how the universe began (however much "began" and other such words make sense in these contexts), that is correct. It'd be major headline news if there was. We can only track it back to 13.7 billion years ago.

Well gravitational wave astronomy may be able to see further when the technology is advanced enough. The Large Hadron Collider in CERN may be able to learn something. Plus there are several cosmological tests of theories about the previous era. However it's a difficult area and it could take some time. Small possibly isn't the best word, that's true. It's actually that there was (I know this will sound wierd) less distance around back then. To be honest, what ever word helps you to make sense of it is probably the best word.
You suggested area, I think volume would be better. Area is only meters squared and matter occupies meters cubed. Then again you might mean area in a looser sense.This thread is ending soon, but I think we're coming to a better understanding of cosmology. So maybe a fresh thread in light of this one would be a good. Maybe one were people can ask about what we do know of the history following the hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago. For example if people are interested in questioning how stars or galaxies formed.An interesting fact that might get people interested in such a thread is that we know the whole history of the universe following the hot dense state, except for what caused an unusual event roughly five billion years ago.I apologize if I have been snapy with you ICANT, it can be difficult for me to appreciate how confusing this stuff is to somebody outside the field.Edited by Son Goku, : Adding prospects for future thread.Edited by Son Goku, : Apologize

13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea. With the same amount of matter packed into it, hence it was very dense. It wasn't 5 billion light years wide until a while later. The Big Bang was never intended to be a theory of the origin of the universe. It only purports to explain the early history of the universe and is well established in this regard. It is slightly unfair to say it failed at a task it never attempted. At the earliest point we can measure the universe is already at 1,160,400,000,000,000 degrees. (roughly) (1 quintillion degrees) I only discussed the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. I think the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal was only mentioned once. Well it is the correct theory of the early universe. It's not a theory of the universe's origins and never was.

I'd agree with cavediver. Although the thread was quite interesting initially, it has become very difficult to follow. Also the reappearance of "Where did the singularity come from?", given that this has been explained several tens of times, indicates to me that it isn't going anywhere.