The beginning is the One and the end is the world of multiplicity. They seem to be two separate things, but like a burning coal and its flame, one does not exist without the other. To say that each is imbedded in the other is to say that they are equivalent. This statement is both true and not true depending upon what one means by it.
To say that God does not exist without the creation is simply another way of saying that God both contains and transcends all possibilities. If, in some sense, the creation, were not a part of God, then there would exist something which God does not contain. This would lead to a contradiction since God plus the creation would then be more than just God alone. Likewise, the creation cannot exist without the invisible hand of God supporting it, and hence, the creation also implies God. This creates a kind of logical equivalence between the creation and God since each implies the other.
Notice that we are not saying above that God is nothing more than an aggregate of atomic particles, or that God is nature in the way that the latter is generally experienced. From this view of the creation, God is infinitely more, and the two are not equivalent. However, the higher perspective is that there is no burning coal without the flame, and there is no flame without the support of the burning coal. Similarly, God must contain all possibilities, and the creation cannot exist without God.
The last two sentences above reiterate that even though there appears to be multiplicity, there is only One