Swaha
This is what I understand, although I must state I'm not a physicist
It might be easier to understand what has been explained to you if you imagine yourself inside the singularity (looking out) and, therefore, the expanding universe... which you are.
Imagining the balloon idea, as if you are on the outside of it (looking in), can give the mistaken impression that there is something outside the balloon (singularity/universe) and that it is expanding inside a larger, external space/volume, which it isn't.
The space/volume represented outside the balloon model boundary is intended to be an imaginary, conceptual one and doesn't actually represent anything in a physicist's mind. Space, time and energy only existed within the confines ot the singularity and the inflating universe.
The singularity was not inside anything (since it was everything and everywhere) so any ideas about its position, as a very small point, within a real 3D space are meaningless are they not?
Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. From this observation, he reasoned, that if you reverse the evolutionary process, then everything in the universe must, at some point in the past, have been in the same place at the same time, hence the singularity.
I think the idea of a singularity, at the beginning of the universe, is supported by the generally accepted view (amongst mainstream physicists and astronomers) that they do actually exist.... within Blackholes.
Why do they take this view and not one like you've suggested, for example? Because the singularity idea fits in best with their data, math and observations.so far.