Upon investigating the phrase, "one cannot create anything out of

nothing," I discovered that the word 'create' (provided by Oxford)

originates from late Middle English with the sense, "form out of
nothing," 'form' being in the verbal syntax of 'to form,' or 'to produce.'
Thereby, to 'create' is to 'produce, sourcing from no object that bears a
form,' and rephrasing the foremost phrase accordingly will thus read:
"{one cannot} {produce, sourcing from no object that bears a form,}
{any object that bears a form} {sourcing from no object that bears a
form.}"
Simplified, "you cannot produce any [physical] thing from a lack of
[physical] sources if you lack a [physical] source from which you would
produce a [physical] thing."
This is a fallacy of redundancy. It falls like so: "if you lack a source
from which you would produce a thing, then you cannot produce any
thing from a lack of sources." This statement assumes itself for truth.
Where x is any number(s) above 0, the statement says, "if you multiply
by 0 as a way of producing x, then you cannot achieve x by multiplying
by 0." I conclude that, mathematically and within the bounds of
physics, one indeed cannot create anything out of nothing... but would
it apply to the creative designer of that rule (in metaphysics)? Yet I
can't help but be bothered that I sit in a chair, which is clearly all but
natural (save that it is wooden)... so if not naturally occurring, is it not
then created? Then again, if trees are living creations themselves,
could they not also be deemed 'creatures?'

tomorrow 4:30-5:00

I beg to differ with the phrase "a thing cannot be created out of
nothing." My primary reasoning is that the word 'create' (provided by
Oxford) originates from Middle English in the sense "form out of
nothing." 'Form' being in the verbal syntax of 'to form' or 'to produce a
form,' a resulting rephrase of the foremost statement would be, "a
thing cannot be [produced a form out of nothing] out of nothing."
As perplexing as this redundancy seems, the preposterousness is quite
evidenced:
In short, the statement would read, "a thing cannot be made physical if
there is no physical nonphysical thing to physically draw physique
from."
At length, "a thing cannot assume physical form when there is no
source for a nonexistent source of said form."
Explained, "a thing cannot be produced as possessing physical
properties when no [physical source without a physical source]
exists." Let's call [this] a 'physically sourceless physical source,' or
simply, 'sourceless source.'
In its simplest form, "a thing cannot be physically existent and lack a
sourceless source."