Alan asked in [OPE-L:2933]:
> a) is the inevitable dryness theorem a correct
> theorem?
The "inevitable dryness theorem" depends critically on the assumption that
"God" has and uses a "Dirty Great Big Umbrella." This assumption violates
logic, scientific evidence, and the laws of physics. It must be rejected.
If it is not rejected then we need to take a fresh look at (among other
things): a) the flat earth hypothesis (btw, still accepted in South Africa
by some Afrikaaners); b) Jevons's sunspot theory for business cycle
variations; and c) the Tooth Fairy hypothesis.
> b) does it refute Marx?
To the extent that the "Inevitable Dryness Theorem" requires us to reject
logic, science, and materialism for mysticism and _non sequiturs_, it is
clear that the IDT is _incompatible_ with Marx"s critical theory. Although
the IDT rejects Marx this does not mean that it refutes Marx.
> c) If I successfully disprove the existence of God's Umbrella, does
> this constitute a refutation of the inevitable dryness theorem?
Yes.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry