Forums → WEPR → Unstoppable Force meets Unmovable Object

And there is no god, yet we still debate that one :P

i hate the "if a tree falls and noone is around to hear it, does it make a sound" of course! thats the most simple rule of all! if it does "this" in these cicumstances, it will always do "that" in those circumstances, its kinda annoying, i dont like paradoxes.... god included
if god is omnipotent, (all powerful) can he create something that even he cant move?

if god is omnipotent, (all powerful) can he create something that even he cant move?

There's no challenge if it isn't accepted.

But, I did find this to be a bit interesting. I never thought about the degrees of omnipotence.

If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.[8] On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.[19]
If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, a reduction of ones' own power is possible for non-omnipotent beings, so one would have the paradoxical situation that non-omnipotent beings can do something which an essentially omnipotent being can not accomplish.

I find it interesting that humans create a language system in which they can define the impossible. If we just take the phrase "omnipotent"... its almost a paradox in itself because the word is ment to imply limitless power and therefore the being CAN create something it cannot lift and becomes a black hole into which my brain falls... slowely?!?

Anyway, I like the idea of the unstoppable force bouncing off the immovable object. The force didnt stop and the object didnt move. Its like me when I think Im right... I appear to be both and yet Im in a state of perpetual infinity, floating across the cosmos on my rubber dingy...

Im not high btw... this is what happens when I dont smoke weed for months :P

-sigh- this is what happens when you try to communicate almost unimaginable concepts to one another based on a language system that came about to let each other know where the fresh fruit was and how you speared a wild boar that was TTTHHHIIISSSSSS big (I swear).

Unstoppable, Unmovable, Collision. Together they are contradictory terms. You cannot change their definitions for the question. Even with a differing set of logic, a solution would involve changing the definition of one of these terms, which butchers the question.

Lawl... ok... but I never signed up for that when I joined the human race. Impossible concepts are soooo much more fun than discussing the size of your spear (mines pretty big btw)

Oh also quantum states and space-time could be a factor in the argument but I don't want to get into that.

= Logical fallacy.

The force didnt stop and the object didnt move.

surely it stops, if even momentarily, to allow the force to change direction

Yes, because to reverse direction, acceleration is required, which means that forces have some effect on the object, meaning that it really isn't unstoppable. Also, you can't have an Unmovable Object, because every force equates to a small amount of movement - The atoms in our body exert a force, however small, on distant stars

@Legion1350

close. if it hits the unmovable object flat on, then who knows what would happen, as in order to bounce off directly like that, it has to actually stop first. however, if they collide at an angle, the unstoppable force would bounce off at the same angle. its all in the words.

Also, you can't have an Unmovable Object, because every force equates to a small amount of movement - The atoms in our body exert a force, however small, on distant stars