No thing can come from nothing. And so, the argument goes, things must have come from something, hence the Lord our God, who neatly avoids the initial difficulty by not being a thing.
But then the argument trips over that initial statement. Because the initial statement is one about the nature of things and how we know things.
Being a thing means existing in the context of other things. Even those poor, deluded Platonists cannot avoid that fate for their Ideals. The metaphysical ‘light (or is it shadow?) cone’ of the ideal circle is distinguishable from the realm of the square, and that is part of being a circle from our viewpoint.
So, when we begin to speak of things coming from God, we have already begun to speak of God as a thing. We can back up at this point, and say that we don’t really mean to say things ‘come from’ God in the way that things ‘come from’ – in other words, are known by their association with – other things.
It is only a loose analogy. The way in which things come from God is not, in itself, explicable. There is no possible mechanism of divine emanation.
But that position is just a special kind of Nihilism. It is a claim of revelation, which stands opposed to explanation, and marks the end of argumentation. If one ‘just knows’, then one ‘just knows’ and that’s the end of it.
Dedicated to the Game 
Anyone who says no thing can come from nothing – has never been married 😀
Yes, but isn’t there always something underneath the nothing?
If you have the nerve to look there!
Hello !
Another disturbance (but not as crucial) is to consider fire as an element, though it is a process. There is a thing underneath fire, but fire is no-thing.
Borut