A question about the philosophical thought of Maimonides and the Greek sages.

I would like to ask His Honor a question that really bothers me about Maimonides' opinion. Of course, it doesn't seem to me that the excuse for this is that the Maimonides supposedly had to not completely reject Aristotle in order to save his contemporaries, etc. It seems to me that it is more necessary to understand their way of thinking, which is probably different from ours. And in this I ask for help from His Honor.

Maimonides wrote that if God had not been revealed, it would have been possible to understand that Aristotle was indeed right that God does not have will and that the world necessarily stems from Him, just as the shadow stems from man. In other words, the world stems from God necessarily. And was not created by will.

It is very difficult for me to contain this and I cannot find the opening to introduce such a thought. After all, there is no equal side between God, who is obligated to reality, and the reality of the world, which is lacking and limited and which is not the truth and what must be.
When there is an inconceivable gap between things, how is it possible to speak of something that comes without will? After all, there is no continuity that connects the God of truth to the unobligated creation except that such is His will.
In other words: Even if we were faced with an insoluble question (according to the philosophers), whether God has a will. To say that He has no will would be much more difficult because there is a world here that is not God Himself and how it came to be. And even more so if you denied will because you do not understand how will belongs to the whole. Even more astonishing is it for you how there is a world that is not a truth that comes out of the whole. We would have to find only the whole and nothing else.
If the philosophers had said that the world is ancient and is, in essence, the source of itself, there would still be room for this to be contained in the mind. But since they too correctly understood that something that is only possible is necessarily a reality, and that its cause of existence comes from the Creator, how is this possible without the will of God?
In short, even if there are difficulties, it is impossible to say by force that this is something that has no basis in reason.
Of course, the matter of the shadow emerging from a person and a physical body, we understand well the sequence of the process, but here they have associated the two things that have the greatest gap that our mind tolerates. And as a far-fetched example, as it is said that reason has a shadow and it takes up space. 16 times a thousand in the difference between the true God and the possible and limited world. If the philosophers did not have a perception of the perfection of God, then it would not be difficult for me. For in this thought, God is also nothing but something similar to rain. But I ask them precisely from where they came and understood the perfection of God. And how could they continue to say that the world can emerge from Him without conscious intention and will.

And I will explain in a slightly different way: How is it possible to perceive that there is a world that is not bound by reality and is not the source of itself, and yet, by God's will, there was no other world that was here, nothing and nothing. And this, in my opinion, is incomprehensible because…
After all, God has a completely different nature and is bound to reality and truth. And the world is not like that, and so how could such a thing come out of it without a calculated will to do something completely different from it? There is no and it does not belong to there being any continuity between the essence and the truth. For something limited and not necessarily has to be. And how could it be conceivable, even in the most remote possibility, that this came out of it. Without will and intention.
In short, they also knew that God and the world were different things, the purpose of change, and so how did they believe there was continuity here?
Even if they did not conceive of the possibility of existence from nothing, they could say that the world is necessarily primordial in its own right. (Which, of course, the intellect does not accept, because then we would have to think of the world as having to be and not something that is only possible) but that the world comes out of God in a way anyway. This seems completely absurd, and we will not say so even if the line of greatness beyond comprehension makes it difficult for us. Although it seems that the root of their thought lies in the fact that their thought did not contain a concept of there being no where. And as Maimonides claimed about them, they did not notice the division between another created being and the One who created. And that this should not be touched upon. But I still firmly argue that associating creation with division in all kinds of divisions. To God and as being required of Him is impossible anywhere and is open to our intellect. (And yet I am extremely surprised at Maimonides, since he taught us to understand the process of creation, and he did not continue his blessing and cry out that Aristotle's words are completely absurd. And what is the point of associating a world that is not true from a true God. And there is no conceivable continuity)

And especially in light of Nathaniel Rubin's book, "What God Cannot Do," in which he extensively reviewed all the nonsense that has been said about God throughout the ages. And there he brought up in detail that it was the philosophers who insisted that nature is impossible and that God cannot be imposed on God whatever they want. And whole, that is, what is truly perceived as whole and does not include the opposites together. And so I stand and ask whether what they said is not more impossible than what the Christians said that God was realized. I think that the philosophers' opinion is much more impossible. Because the Christian view is that God is omnipotent and by His will He can be whatever He wills. But at least they explained some kind of logical continuity. But in the words of the philosophers there is no trace of perception and any continuity between God, who is obligated to reality, and the world, which is nothing but a possible reality, and between the finite and the finite. These are the things that are most fundamentally divided, and we have no greater division than that. And we have nothing but the possibility of a being from nowhere and a purposeful and absolute will. And without any side or word of obligation from him.

I think that they had a different type of thought than ours and therefore could have conceived such an idea. I would like to address this thought. I will bring a fish to this. Probably in years to come we will stand and ask how it was possible for so many scientists to study creation and not ask what its initial origin was and that their short-sighted minds could contain some kind of answer that the beginning is not a matter for science and that is enough. And we will cry out to the heavens, is it possible? How can you not think what the origin is and that nothing can come from the Big Bang by itself. But today that we are acquainted with these short-sighted people. We understand very well where their thought came from. And as soon as there is a type of low perception that deals only with what exists, it is possible to arrive at such thoughts. I want to understand something like this process in relation to the thought of the philosophers. And I am not successful. And perhaps His Honor can help me with this.

PS: What is the philosophical reason that caused the wise men of the nations to abandon Aristotle's opinion? (Apart from the scientific one. And in general, has science proven that the world was created out of nothing?)

Thank you in advance. And I would be very, very happy for a quick answer.