If an immovable object is an object that cannot be moved no matter what and an irresistible force can move anything, what would happen if an irresistible force is used on the immovable object?
closed as not a real question by Joseph Weissman♦, Cody Gray, Dori Jun 19 '11 at 1:07
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
This is an unanswerable question due to contradictory premises.
The immovable object vs. the irresistible force question is a commonly used example for this fallacy of reason, and it is explained on this page:
The problem here is that in a universe where an irresistible force has been defined to exist, there cannot also exist an immovable object, because then the force would not be irresistible. Conversely, if there is discovered or defined such an item as an immovable object, then by definition there can be no such thing as an irresistible force.
It's a fallacy of reason only if you "assume" that the irresistible force and the immovable object are two separate entities. If they are one and the same, then the statement "they can't meet" holds true. Now, if the universe is the irresistible force and the immovable object, then the logic holds.