What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
- Thread starter Prognostic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I dunno, but I just feel like using this thread to 'ahem' make a spiritual observation! 
There is this big theological word(s) called the 'Hypostatic Union' of Christ to prove His deity. It is illustrated with a pencil and an iron bar.
If Jesus were just a man He would be like that pencil, which you can snap by simply putting it between the second and fourth finger (under) and the third finger (above) and slapping your hand on the table. Easy to break with very little effort.
Well, God is likened to that iron rod which is not so easily broken (might be bent--but hardly broken).
So we tape the weak pencil and the strong iron together, side-by-side and that pictures the 'God-man' . . . the pencil is not so easy to break now, is it. It has taken on the strength of the object to which it is taped to.
Thus, the Hypostatic union of Christ! Jesus is both man and God at the same time.
He had to be a man to die for us, and He has to be God to keep us saved.
There is this big theological word(s) called the 'Hypostatic Union' of Christ to prove His deity. It is illustrated with a pencil and an iron bar.
If Jesus were just a man He would be like that pencil, which you can snap by simply putting it between the second and fourth finger (under) and the third finger (above) and slapping your hand on the table. Easy to break with very little effort.
Well, God is likened to that iron rod which is not so easily broken (might be bent--but hardly broken).
So we tape the weak pencil and the strong iron together, side-by-side and that pictures the 'God-man' . . . the pencil is not so easy to break now, is it. It has taken on the strength of the object to which it is taped to.
Thus, the Hypostatic union of Christ! Jesus is both man and God at the same time.
He had to be a man to die for us, and He has to be God to keep us saved.
Here is another spiritual application which is more in line with what I think the OP was fishing for.
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
The irresistible force is the Holy Spirit meeting an immovable object, which is the dead sinner. Now Calvinism would say the irresistible force overcomes the immovable object. In their theology that is called irresistible grace. But that ain’t the answer. The answer is that if an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the irresistible force is deflected without stopping, and the immovable object is crushed without moving. If a dictionary is right, any way.
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
The irresistible force is the Holy Spirit meeting an immovable object, which is the dead sinner. Now Calvinism would say the irresistible force overcomes the immovable object. In their theology that is called irresistible grace. But that ain’t the answer. The answer is that if an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the irresistible force is deflected without stopping, and the immovable object is crushed without moving. If a dictionary is right, any way.
-
1
- Show all
irresistible force?
It's not an irresistible force, it's "unstoppable" force.
In any case, it's all moot since these two things don't and can't exist inside the laws of the universe "apparently".
I like your analogy but to be "deflected" would imply and mean the unstoppable force isn't actually unstoppable since it can be moved (changed direction) and that isn't then an unstoppable force. By unstoppable I mean nothing and I mean nothing can stop it. Including make it change direction.
It's not an irresistible force, it's "unstoppable" force.
In any case, it's all moot since these two things don't and can't exist inside the laws of the universe "apparently".
I like your analogy but to be "deflected" would imply and mean the unstoppable force isn't actually unstoppable since it can be moved (changed direction) and that isn't then an unstoppable force. By unstoppable I mean nothing and I mean nothing can stop it. Including make it change direction.
T
for this, if the immovable is by definition immovable, then it doesn't move, it's like a big giant wall
if the unstoppable force, let's imagine, a bouncy ball, bounce against the big giant wall
then that ball (or unstoppable force) will just bounce off the wall, hence, the force did not stop, it merely bounce off of an immovable object to another direction
and if this interpretation is wrong, why is this interpretation wrong?
if the unstoppable force, let's imagine, a bouncy ball, bounce against the big giant wall
then that ball (or unstoppable force) will just bounce off the wall, hence, the force did not stop, it merely bounce off of an immovable object to another direction
and if this interpretation is wrong, why is this interpretation wrong?
To bounce it in another direction would mean it's stoppable in the direction it's travelling in. So therefor it's not unstoppable if it can be bounced. It's movable if it can be bounced. And a truly unstoppable force can't be stopped, bounced or redirected. The simple truth is. In reality. In the laws of physics. There can be no such thing. There is no unstoppable force. And there is no immovable object as space is infinite in size so everything is just basically floating around. There's moving forces. A comet etc. And objects. A planet for example. The comet crashes into the planet and becomes one with it. Or many millions of pieces!
Paradox or Just Gibberish?
This isn't really a paradox, this is just opening your mouth and letting a logical contradiction come out.
We can combine words in ways which create gibberish things that can only exist as words, but which cannot exist in the physical world.
It's like saying, "square circle."
A square circle isn't a paradox, it's just nonsensical gibberish.
We can put words together in ways so they contradict each other, and when we do so, we've described a "non thing" which does not exist in the physical world.
BTW, when discussing these "self contradictory non-things", not only do they NOT exist, but they also CANNOT exist... there is no circumstance in which they CAN exist. This is really what "logically impossible" means.
Clever Atheist:
Sometimes a clever atheist will say, "If God can do anything, can he make a square circle?"
When I hear this I say, "A square circle is not a thing, it's just two contradictory words stuck together to make gibberish. I can prove it's gibberish; the day you can draw one, I'm sure God can produce one. Heck, if you can draw one, I can probably produce it myself."
(There are other answers to this particular atheist question, but they get way off the current topic.)
Abstract Ideas and Non-Things:
A non-thing, like a square circle, (or an immovable object paradox) FAILS to exist in MORE places than just the physical world.
A non-thing also fails to exist in the realms of logic, philosophy, or any area of theoretical thought, as it ceases to have any potential existence at the very moment it contradicts itself.
So, not only does a non-thing fail to exist in the physical world, it also fails to exist in the world of thought... as there is NOT ACTUALLY A THING about which to think! And this is why many fields of science have people who specialize in the PHILOSOPHY of that branch of science... to help sort out these non-things.)
Conclusion:
1. A statement that contradicts itself isn't a paradox... it's just gibberish.
2. A self contradictory statement only constitutes a "non thing."
3. It's good to keep an eye out for "non things", because atheists use them in arguments against God.
..
This isn't really a paradox, this is just opening your mouth and letting a logical contradiction come out.
We can combine words in ways which create gibberish things that can only exist as words, but which cannot exist in the physical world.
It's like saying, "square circle."
A square circle isn't a paradox, it's just nonsensical gibberish.
We can put words together in ways so they contradict each other, and when we do so, we've described a "non thing" which does not exist in the physical world.
BTW, when discussing these "self contradictory non-things", not only do they NOT exist, but they also CANNOT exist... there is no circumstance in which they CAN exist. This is really what "logically impossible" means.
Clever Atheist:
Sometimes a clever atheist will say, "If God can do anything, can he make a square circle?"
When I hear this I say, "A square circle is not a thing, it's just two contradictory words stuck together to make gibberish. I can prove it's gibberish; the day you can draw one, I'm sure God can produce one. Heck, if you can draw one, I can probably produce it myself."
(There are other answers to this particular atheist question, but they get way off the current topic.)
Abstract Ideas and Non-Things:
A non-thing, like a square circle, (or an immovable object paradox) FAILS to exist in MORE places than just the physical world.
A non-thing also fails to exist in the realms of logic, philosophy, or any area of theoretical thought, as it ceases to have any potential existence at the very moment it contradicts itself.
So, not only does a non-thing fail to exist in the physical world, it also fails to exist in the world of thought... as there is NOT ACTUALLY A THING about which to think! And this is why many fields of science have people who specialize in the PHILOSOPHY of that branch of science... to help sort out these non-things.)
Conclusion:
1. A statement that contradicts itself isn't a paradox... it's just gibberish.
2. A self contradictory statement only constitutes a "non thing."
3. It's good to keep an eye out for "non things", because atheists use them in arguments against God.
..