I think you and certainly Cato1 misconstrue the philosophical and theological notion of the void.
The void is not 'perfect emptiness' since 'emptiness' implies extent
without content. The void simply isn't, therefore it doesn't 'come from something or from somewhere' because it isn't.
Theology is the one place where ordinary language and concepts collapse into complete irrelevancy in a more complete failure than in discussing quantum mechanics (where they don't do very well either).
Outside of creation (I don't want to use 'before' since time, as well as space are created), there is not God and the Void, but only the Uncreated God. 'EgO eimi ho On' (using o for omicron and O for omega and an h for the 'rough breathing') God replies from the burning bush when asked His name. (As an Orthodox Christian I regard the Septuigent, Greek Old Testament as authoritative, as did, evidently, the authors of the New Testament). In English, roughly "I am The Existing One" (or better "I am The Being" but with 'being' as a part of the verb to be rather than the English noun). Only God has absolute, uncontingent, unconditioned existence. As a guard against attaching to Him our finite conception of existence, some of the Church Fathers said things like "It is not strictly correct to say that God exists. Not that He lacks existence,
but that his supraexistential being is beyond existence." (from Dionysius
the Areopagites' The Names of God), or even "I believe in God, God does not exist." (I forget which of the Cappadocian Fathers).
All binary distinctions, being vs. non-being, fullness vs. emptiness, unity vs. multiplicity, even transcendence vs. immanence, are created. God is Uncreated.
(As an aside, I would note for Orthodox and Latin Christians creation ex nihilo is a Biblical doctrine, while for protestants it isn't: the only Scriptural testimony for the doctrine occurs in 2nd Macabbees--the widow Solomonia in exhorting her sons to accept martyrdom rather than abandon Judaism for paganism, testifies 'He created the world from nothing".)
BTW: Is the snark a boojum?
I think you and certainly Cato1 misconstrue the philosophical and theological notion of the void.The void is not 'perfect emptiness' since 'emptiness' implies extent without content. The void simply isn't, therefore it doesn't 'come from something or from somewhere' because it isn't.
My first characterization was the more abstract one—"blank non-entity"—and your characterization agrees with it—"[t]he void simply isn't". Nor am I certain that "emptiness" implies extent. We're probably running up against the limits of figurative speech here.
In the last part of your just-quoted statement, you're simply assuming as obvious your answer to the question I asked Cato1. But I'm not sure what Cato1 had in mind, and that's why I asked him the question I asked.
Outside of creation (I don't want to use 'before' since time, as well as space are created), there is not God and the Void, but only the Uncreated God.
Of course, 'outside of creation' has the whiff of extensive containment and non-containment about it, but, leaving that aside, what you say here (and what follows in your post) is dogma. I'm not at all sure that it falls within the purview of the notions of 'truth' and 'falsehood' (i.e., it may be that it's "not even wrong"). In particular, I don't know what meaning attaches to the following (my underlines):
Only God has absolute, uncontingent, unconditioned existence. As a guard against attaching to Him our finite conception of existence, some of the Church Fathers said things like "It is not strictly correct to say that God exists. Not that He lacks existence, but that his supraexistential being is beyond existence."
The early Catholic theorists knew their Proclus and Plotinus, and, through them, their Plato, but that doesn't guarantee that they were making sense. In Book VII of Plato's Republic, we hear of 'the Idea of the Good', which is said to be 'beyond being (ousia)'. This passage is the fons et origo of all later discussions of 'awesome priors' in the neo-Platonic and Catholic traditions. But, still, all of this sort of talk could well be based on what is simply an especially fulsome bit of Plato's "dear, gorgeous nonsense", an outflowing of his metaphysical enthusiasm that doesn't bear close scrutiny.