 X is Y In deductive logic, one may not make a leap from one proposition to another without the recurrence of some formal aspect, along with one or more logical operations to connect them. X is Y only as an assumption (where you designate X with logical equivalence to Y). Which is one reason theologians tends to fall short of providing irrefutable proof that god exists. Unless you assume the existence of a thing, without recourse to empirical evidence, it is a leap of faith (an induction) to posit its being there. Which is also the reason an explanation of the origin of the universe requires a leap of faith. Patently, the universe is already there, in which case X is extant, but Y? What caused it to come into being? We don't know yet, the non-believer will say, but typically will assume there is an as yet unestablished scientific explanation. At least, given X, we can be sure it exists. However to explain Y as a result of X is as futile as arguing logically how something can in theory come out of nothing. Let's assume there was always something, X, in which case there is no need to explain Y. It could be likewise assumed. But then could god be a rational assumption? Or anything else for that matter? Over time there is change, from one thing to another, so it might be said the only assumption you need is X is Y, and any further nominal addition (let's call it G) is redundant, as in the argument: X is Y, therefore G. Assumption: Reality (X) Assumption: Reality is everything (X is Y) Assumption: Everything has a cause (Y implies G) Reality has a cause (X implies G) Therefore: G But clearly, in this argument, X is Y, and there is no need for G, it is a redundant proposition. The universe is all there is. However if X is Y, we only really need X in order to account for Y, since they are the same thing, and it is an illegal move to go from X to Y if that move involves the assumption of another object or predicate. So all we really need is X. Or G. In other words, the move to explain X with Y is as redundant as the move to explain Y with G. Or else we have to do away with X as well, which leaves us with. Hover in the cells to see a range of categories. Choose One... ...or swat the wasp for a chance discourse!