So material cause thus becomes some bare notion of contingency or accident or fluctuation. It is whatever is logically complementary to formal cause. That leads to a Peircean ontology of constraints on contingency. Matter arises from action being given a direction. — apokrisis

As I understand it, the laws of nature are not separate from nature or imposed on nature from outside. Things behave as they do because it is their nature to behave that way. There is only nature, not nature and laws of nature. Matter is what it is because non material energy condensed in a particular way. The Fine Tuning Argument says that energy condensed in a very precise way and as a result the creative potential of matter was optimized. The combinatorial possibilities of matter are immense (Lego!) and this is because of the way energy condensed into matter. If things happened in a different way, matter might just be a blob without much creative potential.

would that count as creatio ex nihilo? — TheMadFool

No since that energy isn't nothing, and there would be the question what caused that energy?

Also, a thing exists only if there's a preexisting "space" of possibility in which to establish itself. For instance, if one wants to build a house, there has to be, before the construction can begin, space for that house. In other words, space for existence must precede existence itself, no? If yes, one thing is certain then, to wit that nothing (space) precedes something/anything. It must be then that creatio ex nihilo is true. — TheMadFool

is space nothing? it has no mass nor energy, but is it nothing? we cannot be sure of that, especially with dark matter and energy making up 95% of the universe, so we could possibly assume they are something.

But if we assume it is nothing,
what entails that nothing must precede something? for example they can bot appear and expand at the same time and at the same rate,
and even then, I believe OP's logic still stands
there is this interesting essay which points out the modal problem of creatio ex nihilo should be an interesting read.

There wasn't anything that caused the universe. There is simply a causal series going back to the first member of the series, which would be the first motion of the big bang. Our human construct of time is what limits people from seeing this. Time might be a true nothing

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

No since that energy isn't nothing — Augustusea

What is nothing then?

for example they can bot(h) appear and expand at the same time and at the same rate, — Augustusea

Even so, something would be impossible without nothing. Think of it...without nothing in which something can be placed, there would be no something. In other words, nothing is necessary for something.

What is nothing then? — TheMadFool

you know we humans ultimately can't comprehend nothing since if we try to imagine it would be something, but basically its no matter, no volume, no laws of physics, no atoms, no energy, no fields, nothing

Even so, something would be impossible without nothing. Think of it...without nothing in which something can be placed, there would be no something. In other words, nothing is necessary for something. — TheMadFool

alright, there is this way we learnt in the military academy, basically, when you try to dig a trench, you you dig and build one central hole at the same time, and expand from that, digging more and building at the same time.

you know we humans ultimately can't comprehend nothing since if we try to imagine it would be something, but basically its no matter, no volume, no laws of physics, no atoms, no energy, no fields, nothing — Augustusea

I have a feeling this is not the nothing that creatio ex nihilo or ex nihilo nihil fit is referring to. What is something, here being contrasted with nothing?

alright, there is this way we learnt in the military academy, basically, when you try to dig a trench, you you dig and build one central hole at the same time, and expand from that, digging more and building at the same time. — Augustusea

Where did you put the dirt you dug out?

I have a feeling this is not the nothing that creatio ex nihilo or ex nihilo nihil fit is referring to. What is something, here being contrasted with nothing? — TheMadFool

Something is anything you can imagine, or anything that actually exists, even quantum fields are a thing,
and nothing can only mean one thing, nothing, there isn't much definitions to it now.

Where did you put the dirt you dug out? — TheMadFool

In front of the trench, but that would be irrelevant, point is, you can build and make up space at the same time.