Yes, I was just questioning the science.
There is no actual science concerning any singularity. The Big Bang was pure speculation based upon one skimpy notion (red shift) and since it was introduced it has been merely a religious promotion. There is no actual science to support the idea of the Big Bang and certainly none for the existence of a singularity.
Temperature requires movement of particles.
Singularity means no movement.
Without movement there isn’t temperature.
=======…
Movement is the same thing as separation and both don’t exist in a so called singularity.
I know much about the biography and the works of the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and that he and, for example, Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg were members of the "Uranprojekt“ ("Uran Project“) before and during the Second World War.
To the subject “Big Bang”:
Sorry.
Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker was physicist, not physician
===.
Sorry, English is not my fisrt language. I meant “physicist” - of course. It is the second time already that I confused the word “physicist” with the word “physician”.
They used to mean the same thing, but split when physics became vogue. Now in English “physician” refers to a medical person (often not an MD, such as Obama-care physicians) and thus separate from science and physical philosophy (PhD).
More like a physiotherapist?
Arminus, I do much more mistakes
Really?
Ah, by the way: My name is Arminius. You forgot the “i”. 
If singular point exists, can it have very high temperature?
If singular point exists, can it have zero temperature?
===.
Big bang and a black hole?
Sounds like some kind of 70’s porno movie.
The "mainstream“ physicists (not physicians 
) and probably also the most "mainstream“ biophysicists would possibly answer your question as follows: The universe is a system of chaos with a small amount of information and thus a great amount of entropy, whereas living beings are self-preservation systems of order and complexity with a great amount of information and a small amount of entropy. This is the reason why living beiings are also capable of doing and making complex things in a very short time, whereas the universe needs a very long time, for example at least 10 billion years for making the first complex living being.
I understand you.
The “small information” of universe was pregnant.
Because was chaos we don’t know who was here lover.
But somehow the “small information” gave birth to
“a great amount of information” . . . . which were adopted
by living beings.
This is the reason why living beings are also capable of doing
and making complex things in a very short time,
===…
Question.
Why the “great amount of information” cannot explain the “small information”
=============…
If 2+2=3, can it have milk?
That is a good metaphor - especially for me, beacuse I like “prenatal” and “perinatal” philosophical issues. Humans have to come into the world somehow, even if their real birth is past.
Yes. One can say so.
I gues you mean: “Why can’t the “great amount of information” explain the “small Information?”
Because the “great amount of Information” is only capable of explaining the medium or averarge issues, but not other issues like the beginning or the end of the “small Information". The “small Information” is possibly too “small” (simple) for explaining it. The example “homo sapiens” makes it clear, I think: Humans often do not have many answers to the simpliest questions of their own dasein. Why are humans in the world?
Humans are not really capable of explaining how, for example, the universe emerged, if it emerged at all.
The humans’ brains are made for surviving.