The truth is that I’m having trouble explaining myself on this topic, and I also remember that there is some mathematical formulation for what I’m trying to say, but I don’t remember that either, or who said it. If I’m not mistaken, this is an attempt to show that the world was not created ex nihilo. And from a logical standpoint I think that really is impossible.
So I understand that the meaning of the phrase “something from nothing” refers to matter. That is, material existence was created out of no material thing, but from abstract existence. And therefore it follows that the basis of matter, so to speak, is the abstract part, and not that the abstract created matter from nothing. Rather, it itself “contracted into matter.” Which means that the abstract is swallowed up within matter. (Panentheism)
I hope I explained myself well.

The comment above is mine. I don’t know why it listed me as Netanel.

The logic behind pantheism / panentheism, and even idealism, is that it assumes that God is omnipotent. And omnipotence means that all power is in God’s hands.
If some entity exists, then it has power, and therefore there is power in the world that is not God—and that is absurd.

I think I understood what you explained; I just don’t understand where all these assumptions came from.
The same goes for the logic in the last comment. In my opinion there is no absurdity here at all. There are several mistakes here, but the most prominent one is the leap from the assumption that God is omnipotent to the conclusion that all powers are in His hands.

I didn’t say that I stand behind what Daniel said. I also see in it a totally unreasonable leap.
But what is the problem with what I tried to explain?
I think I did understand the definitions of the issue—what exactly does the Rabbi disagree with?

That I don’t understand what any of this means, or where these strange assumptions came from. Even after the unreasonable leap, I still don’t understand what it means that we are included in Him. When I desecrate the Sabbath or murder someone, is it He who does that? When I entertain forbidden thoughts, is He the one doing that? And does that fit with omnipotence and perfection? These are just empty words.

That’s a good question—whether this really means that He does everything, and if so, where are we in the picture? That’s a question one has to deal with. But how is that connected to the question of what God is? Is that the only thing that bothers the Rabbi about this thesis? What is strange about these assumptions? I identify in them a very clear logical sequence. If the Rabbi could elaborate more, I’d be very grateful.
Besides, the claim that says God is external to the world is also not free of assumptions and difficulties.

And what does the Rabbi mean by his question, what does all this mean?
What do you mean—what does it mean? It means that it’s not that there is a world and God looks at us from above. Rather, there is God and there is nothing besides Him, and we are within Him.

No. That does not mean anything definite. What does it mean that we are part of Him? Do we have no choice? Do we not make decisions? Again, these are empty words. I don’t see what there is to explain here. Words that say nothing.

And regarding the Rabbi’s question whether God really does everything—what is the problem with that? The raw material, so to speak, is God, and from that perspective He really does everything, but the agent is me—an independent entity made of God, possessing free choice. Why is that difficult for the Rabbi? I apologize for this clumsy wording, but this is the clearest way it comes out for me.

The clumsy wording is not accidental. The content is clumsy too, not just the wording. That is exactly what I said: these statements are not well defined, so there is no point discussing them. Is God my plow? Are you serious?
If I am not an entity that chooses independently, then I do not exist, and I have no idea who it was that just concluded that I do not exist. That’s it, we’ve exhausted the topic.