I have a theorem which proves rain never falls.
This moreover establishes Marx's decisive errors
on the rain question.
It has two parts. The first part runs as follows:
THE INEVITABLE DRYNESS THEOREM
1) Assume God has a Dirty Great Big Umbrella which
He holds over the world whenever His agents go
out on His business
2) On the basis of assumption 1, it never rains
when God's agents are about His Works.
3) Therefore, rain cannot possibly fall except
through the laxness of God's agents.
The second part is a lemma on Marx's error.
LEMMA: MARX'S ERROR
a) As is well-known, Marx denied the existence
of God, including His Umbrella
b) Marx, like many people of his day, believed
from the available evidence in rain.
c) He constructed an account of this indicating
that weather was a strong causal factor.
d) He was also aware that rain did not fall
all the time, and listed a number of
'countervailing factors' which sometimes
prevented it raining, e.g. sunshine, which is
also part of the weather, a fact to which
Marx paid insufficient attention.
e) However, lacking the sophistication of
modern economics, he did not understand the
role of God's Umbrella.
c) Since the Inevitable Dryness Theorem
conclusively establishes that rain does
not fall, Marx was wrong.
d) In particular he failed to understand that
weather cannot be responsible for rain because
of the role of God's Umbrella. In fact we
now know that the only cause of rain is the
laxness of God's agents.
e) Therefore Marx was Wrong.
Three questions
a) is the inevitable dryness theorem a correct
theorem?
b) does it refute Marx?
c) If I successfully disprove the existence
of God's Umbrella, does this constitute a
refutation of the inevitable dryness theorem?
Alan