Like a parrot the entire scientific community (including me) keeps on repeating 13.7 ba ago the entire Universe was at one point {this has to be much more dense than a black hole_as a matter of fact a black hole may not be even like a grain of sand on a beach as compared to this entity}. So what will cause such an explosion which will spread all the matter present in that entity to be scattered in the entire Universe ? Or is it a forbidden question, just like we can not ask who the god is? We can not produce something from nothing.

The philosophical challenge to cosmology is the way we try to view the clearly defined mathematical models describing the way things work.

What you're trying to do is subjectively imagine an objective reality, by definition you'll run into confusion.

There is nowhere outside the universe to observe the universe, there is no subjective point of view which is not contained within the physical universe.

What this means is that the universe was never compacted from a third person perspective, this third person perspective doesn't exist and is the realm of religion.
The entire universe being very dense means that it is the same size to you, but its composition in subatomic and mathematical terms is different. In fact at that time it couldn't support life due to its makeup so only your perspective is there, a real you isn't.

The definition of a dense, early universe is a mathematical description, it's not a physical one. It's like black hole structures, the ones you see in movies are expressions of math and not real objects. The real thing would look like a very exotic stellar environment, an alien place moving amongs other places that changes the rules in those places. It's a bit like the first you see of a hurricane is some rain and stormy weather, it's later you experience a virtual environmental shift with incredible destructive power and it's only if you're in a spaceship you see the full hurricane for what it is.
This is like the difference between the math of something, and the experience of it.

It's scientific non-sequiteur to imagine one as the other. It's why we do thought-experiments to imagine just one piece of the math and that's easier to make sense of, like say, one particular part of QM responsible for the state of the early proto-universe. And the thought experiment might be about a cat in a box, not trying to view a compacted universe from a third person God perspective, coming out of the gate it kills any science to the exercise.

The shorthand answer to your question is:
In a dense universe entropy is to form subatomic structures. Entropy happens by itself.
Construction of physicality from latent energy is an act of falling to rest from activity, not going to activity from rest.
The universe builds a house by going to sleep and the act of resting builds a house; doing nothing requires maintenance of a higher state of energetic activity than creating things.

The description of a "Big Bang" is what it looks like to an astronomer at first glance, like the universe was once in a gigantic explosion everywhere at once and the residual energy can be measured in the depths of space in every direction.
But it's actually a cooling of a higher energy state.
And it's this cooling which forms subatomic structures, molecules, and physical objects, from the energy.
This is an act of rest, not activity.

Dear folks, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. I am a geologist by qualification. Had it not been for teaching the subject I would be still wandering in the darkness & trying to satisfy myself by taking a mystical approach. But I had to abandon whatever beliefs I was raised with. I will accept my crudeness & lack of finesse needed for answering the questions philosophically. All I know, there is matter & energy; which are one & the same. Any thing which can not be detected, observed, or measured is just an imagination. I am fully aware of the red shift phenomenon which initiated the expanding universe hypothesis; almost 30 years later the detection of pervasive temperature of 2.7 degrees above absolute zero corroborated some high energy event which occurred 13.7 ba ago(During the last 3 decades it has been brought down from 20 ba). I may be wrong or narrow minded, but my training demands to answer simple questions first, before moving to a higher level. I am also aware of the fact that certain laws of well known physics start yielding to some other sets of observations at the subatomic level. Einstein had the similar problem in incorporating quantum physics in his frame work. I am no where close to the genius like him or Hawking. I am puzzled because these observations take us to a point, then leave us hanging & speculating, we will never solve these mysteries but we will know a little bit more to fine tune this model which will never be perfect(the term is elusive); and yes god has no place here.

While asking the question I did not take a 'subjective' approach. Expanding Universe hypothesis is based upon 2 observations which are 'objective'(not subjective); Red Shift & The Back Ground Radiation.(Thought experiments*, and the calculations tell us about some events which occurred during the last 13.7 ba. I am always thinking, what could have initiated the process. I do not consider this entire Universe was'literally' at one point; one location yes, but one point
NO. Because geometry defines a point as a dimension-less entity, which can only be conceptualized, but not drawn). I can not look at this Universe from outside; that will be speculative. I am a part of this Universe, in which these observations are made. Red shift is a simple spectroscopic observation(indicating the galaxies moving away from each other while accelerating at the same-time_observed by E.Hubble). Back ground radiation is a temperature of 2.7 degrees above the absolute zero {originally measured by R. Wilson & A.Penzia, it follows the the second law of thermodynamics(entropy)}. Mathematical notations are integral part of physics (no concept of physics can be explained without mathematics). When I quoted black holes(BH), my statement was purely scientific (as a matter of fact I have never watched any movie, or read a fiction about BH). BH are observed usually in the central part of the galaxies. Their presence is a detected of the radiation emitting from the objects when they are pulled inside these BH. While discussing this topic I have kept into consideration, the laws of thermodynamics,the causal effects of decreasing temperatures, and the formation of matter as we know it. Despite of the fact the Universe is vast, but I am considering it as 'an essentially closed system'. At this time I am unaware of any findings showing the influence of any kind of forces affecting the Universe from outside. I have not
speculated any thing, I am not taking any kind of religion into consideration either, and of course I am not interested in science fictions or movies on this topic.
* Please keep in mind, thought experiments are not mere speculations, Einstein was a theoretical Physicist, his entire work is presented in form of mathematical equations, he had postulated that light can bend because of gravity, and he predicted about the presence of Black Holes; his first prediction was confirmed during a solar eclipse, and as for the Black Holes are concerned, we are becoming more aware of their presence from the observations made during the last 3 decades.

Comparing a black hole to the big bang is an apples to oranges comparison. The black hole singularity is not defined, for the most part, by physics other than still containing whatever mass entered. The usual laws of physics don't apply to whatever is happening at the core but the laws of gravity apparently do.

The big bang is a burst of energy that partially congealed into mass. The mass and gravity didn't start there. They were created later. The cause of the initiation of the blast is unknown but didn't start from nothing. We just don't know what the "something" was. Perhaps it was the energy of collision of two universes floating in hyperspace?

In clinical terms a mass-energy value describes anything in the physical universe, although for areas the term 'field' is used for the same thing. It's minkowski space, with theorum, time isn't an issue. A planet is a mass-energy value in variation to a field.

You can think of it this way with 100% clinical accuracy.
Govern the walk to postulating the potential for sapient thought among things like planets though, it's kind of stepping way into crazy street. Complex evolutionary diversity is responsible for conscious thought, clearly, but one could postulate that a solar flare 'feels' to a star just like what seeing a bird feels like to a cat.