A Bit of Philosophy! I need your opinions!

Skibabinz

Skibabinz

New Member
I'm not sure if this is where this thread would belong, but if it isn't feel free to move it. With that said, I've been considering the hypothetical object of a Unstoppable Force, and an Immovable Object. Below I'll attempt to draw out what I'm meaning, and then describe what I'm saying below that.


The Immovable Object, represented by this box, and a force attempting to move beyond it, represented by <----.

[]<---------------

What I'm demonstrating here is how with an immoveable object, if you try to get beyond it and assuming there is no other path to get beyond that object, by definition you will not get past it.


The Unstoppable Force represented by ====>, and a force attempting to move beyond it, represented again by <----, and t representing time.

t1: =======><-------------, t2: ==========> -------->

Now if you'll notice here, when a force is attempting to get beyond the unstoppable force, and assuming there is no other way around that force, you will not only not be able to move beyond it, but it will move you along its path. From that, does it not look like both the unstoppable force and immoveable object are not only one in the same, but the unstoppable force is the only logical winner of the two. It is both an unstoppable force, and an immoveable object. With that said, I may have explained this completely backwards of how I meant, but I think my logic is pretty accurate.

Thoughts?
 
r-u-trippin-1v2k.jpg


and I mean that in the most kindest way possible because I think what you said was cool, but it was .... whoosh... over my head.
 
Last edited:
The Sphinx: What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?
Superman: They Surrender.

(Read All-Star Superman, it's awesome!)

Anyhow if there exists and immovable object, then it is safe to assume that there cannot exist an unstoppable force, because then the object would be movable. The same applies in reverse also.
 
lol

From that, does it not look like both the unstoppable force and immoveable object are not only one in the same, but the unstoppable force is the only logical winner of the two. It is both an unstoppable force, and an immoveable object.
Click to expand...

It does NOT look like the Unstoppable force and Immovable object are one in the same. An Immovable object, by definition, does not move. Something unstoppable, by definition, is moving. Your logic is not sound.

It is kind of like the attempts people make to say, if God is all powerful why can't he create a rock too big for him to lift? A false logic posing as logic.

Are you trying to imply that God is an Immovable object and an Unstoppable force? That may be true - but not from physics or human logic.

Keeping with the theme of this forum, one verse that may apply is: For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 1 Corinthians 1:19 (NIV)
 
Due to the rather loose definition of "object", I'm of the impression that the unstoppable force will permeate/resonate through the unmovable object, thus preserving both.
 
Themonkey says you are simply wrong. An unmovable object is not the same as an unstoppable force...never, ever.

Themonkey says, by your logic, the answer to the question of "To whom is the bachelor married" is correctly answered, his wife. Themonkey assumes you can see why the answer of "his wife" is incorrect because a bachelor, by definition is not married. The two idea's are mutually exclusive.

The idea that a force (stoppable or unstoppable) being the same as an object (movable or otherwise) is simply laughable.

A force, by definition, is the quantitative interaction between two objects. And an object, by definition, is a material thing that you can see and feel. The two, by definition, are not the same.

Therefor, your assertion that an unstoppable force and an unmovable object are the same and that given the two, an unstoppable force would win out over an unmovable object, is simply flawed in logic because of the assumption that a force is the same as an object.


Themonkey knows if you have two unmovable objects, and that the two objects are the only objects in existence, the force of gravitation would not stop interacting with the two objects. The idea that the two objects are unmovable simply means that the attraction between the two of them due to the law of gravity would not cause the objects to move towards each other. The attraction, the force, simply does not stop, or cease to exist, because the objects do not move.
 
Last edited:
TheMonkey said:
Themonkey says you are simply wrong. An unmovable object is not the same as an unstoppable force...never, ever.

Themonkey says, by your logic, the answer to the question of "To whom is the bachelor married" is correctly answered, his wife. Themonkey assumes you can see why the answer of "his wife" is incorrect because a bachelor, by definition is not married. The two idea's are mutually exclusive.

The idea that a force (stoppable or unstoppable) being the same as an object (movable or otherwise) is simply laughable.

A force, by definition, is the quantitative interaction between two objects. And an object, by definition, is a material thing that you can see and feel. The two, by definition, are not the same.

Therefor, your assertion that an unstoppable force and an unmovable object are the same and that given the two, an unstoppable force would win out over an unmovable object, is simply flawed in logic because of the assumption that a force is the same as an object.


Themonkey knows if you have two unmovable objects, and that the two objects are the only objects in existence, the force of gravitation would not stop interacting with the two objects. The idea that the two objects are unmovable simply means that the attraction between the two of them due to the law of gravity would not cause the objects to move towards each other. The attraction, the force, simply does not stop, or cease to exist, because the objects do not move.
Click to expand...

winning!

I knew when I saw a monkey reply to a thread I was in for something good :)
 
Themonkey was thinking about "Can God create an object that God can not move?"

Themonkey contemplated the ramifications of answering "no." Does answering no infer that God is limited or that 'yes' is a viable alternative.

Themonkey then asked, maybe the better question is (within themonkeys understanding), "is God limited?"

So, Themonkey contemplated the question. Is God limited...are there things that God can not do? Themonkey then asked very specifically, can God do anything that is not in God's nature to do? And the answer is no, God can only do what is in his nature to do. God is holy, holy, holy...God can not be unholy. God can not sin, it is not in God's nature to sin.

Can God create something bigger then himself? God's nature is that God is the all encompassing, omnipotent, omnipresent being. God is bigger then the biggest dream we have and bigger then our deepest troubles. By God's nature, God is the everything and all things. And by that nature, God can not create something bigger then himself, because God's very nature would cease to exist.

Themonkey figures the proper answer to a question of "Can God create an object that God could not move?" would not be yes or no, rather, it is not God's nature to create something bigger then himself.
 
I think the main issue here is in the semantics. I think it's better described as an irresitable force. Your analogy would actually imply 2 objects, both on a set path that cannot be changed, one stationary and one linear, and in that respect they could be equated. But again, the second half of this is a force, not a material object. So what happens when a force that cannot be resisted acts upon an object that cannot be moved? Of course we all know the given answer is chaos, but unfortunately that doesn't really explain anything!
 
Sassamo said:
I think the main issue here is in the semantics. I think it's better described as an irresitable force. Your analogy would actually imply 2 objects, both on a set path that cannot be changed, one stationary and one linear, and in that respect they could be equated. But again, the second half of this is a force, not a material object. So what happens when a force that cannot be resisted acts upon an object that cannot be moved? Of course we all know the given answer is chaos, but unfortunately that doesn't really explain anything!
Click to expand...

Themonkey figures that the theoretical unstoppable force or an irresistible force is defined as a force that no known object is able to resist the force's state changing power. And the theoretical unmovable object is an object of such mass that no known force is able to act up on it to cause it to change it's state. If you take X and call it the theoretical unstoppable force and take Y and call it the theoretical unmovable object and put them in the same room and manage to limit all outside forces upon that room to an equilibrium of Zero, there are only two theoretical possible out comes:

1. The objects do no move. The implies that the conclusion Y is an unmovable object is thus far correct and that X is not an unstoppable (or irresistible) force.

or

2. The objects do move. This implies that the conclusion Y is an unmovable object is incorrect and that thus far, X is an unstoppable (or irresistible) force.
 
Last edited:
When things get too deep for my understanding, I just go here:

Isaiah 55:8 KJV
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Seems to solve all my problems.
 
The entire discussion is based upon a flawed premise. Based upon our current understanding of physics, both an unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist. Therefore, the question is illogical. If the question is illogical, then a logical answer to the question itself does not exist.

We must instead turn to the illogical to answer. Hence, my answer of "onomatopoeia".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top