It's just meaningless. Time is what we measure the passage of events by, so there's no way to compare time now and time in the past. Whether one thinks it ran 'faster' or 'slower' (if it was possible to compare), the same number of events would occur in the same number of 'fast' years or 'slow' years.
It's the other way around - the stronger the gravity the slower time runs relative to less curved spacetime, so the passage of time would have been relatively longer than in flat spacetime. But the whole universe was hot and dense, so there was no 'flatter' spacetime for comparison. As previously mentioned, it's nonsensical to compare the rate of time passing in one era with another because time itself is the measure.
Cosmologists don't literally think that there was an infinitely small and dense point, but if there was it would very much not be nothing. But the singularity is simply where out physical model (General Relativity) breaks down, the equivalent of dividing by zero; it means we don't know what happens in that regime. We know that GR is incomplete and can't describe what happens there - we need a complete theory of quantum gravity.
Reverse-engineered, extrapolated backwards. Oh, so the universe in an infinitely small space is not nothingness… care to explain that according to your rules of science, you know, with evidence.
No, it's not understandable... your statement without understanding is meaningless.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your view on the whole thing then.
The origin and initial state are not known.
Then please explain what you mean.
Because physical laws start breaking down. You guys should think about it from that angle, instead of automatically denying that God exists.
