An unstoppable force would destroy an immovable object.

When a stream encounters a boulder, does the stream attempt to go through stone?

Streams are stoppable.

Boulders are movable.

Metaphor aside, why would an unstoppable force destroy an immovable object? Surely an unstoppable force would be capable of maneuvering around an immovable object.

What kind of unstoppable force doesn't change course? It's not an force that can't be influenced, just one that can't be stopped.

Then you should make a different claim. Something like "An unstoppable force that was incapable of going any direction but through an object that was immovable but destructible, would destroy the object."

Meaningless.

Sethrates is right. You can reduce the sentence to "true = false", and then the answer is obvious. The "unstoppable" and the "immovable" concepts can't exist in the same universe.

I just love that this claim is, at this moment, perfectly balanced in its votes.

Yeah, it's a pretty great claim.

unstoppable doesnt mean completely destructive, nor does immovable mean immune to destruction. there is more at play here when thinking about the destructive or resilient nature of things than just movement i think.

Seems like the irresistable claim met the immovable objection.

I'll take $100 on the immovable object!

Well it is an immovable object not an indistructable object. The immovable object is not being moved it is being destroyed. Nothing can stop the unstoppable force and nothing can move the immovable object so the unstoppable force would cause the immovable object to sease existing.

I really enjoyed reading your arguments above but I have to disagree. I reckon, at the point of meeting between the two, you would get an Event Horizon with the unstoppable force being farced back in on itself.

I mean forced ...

It's illogical that both would exist.

ARGUMENT INSUBSTANTIATED

There is nothing unstoppable and nothing immovable.

What in interesting question! OMG, this is so cool! Gotta think about it. :D

Oh, and that guy before me is an idiot.

An immovable object may be considered an unstoppable force.

Has nobody played world of warcraft?
There was a mace called "The Unstoppable Force"
It was a druid/warrior mace,
there was also a shield called "The Immovable object"

You're an immovable object.

Hairy Baboon's mom is an immovable object.

because only one thing in all reality can have any un-afected-by-somthing-else power, no two such things can exist

so the existence of one would destroy the existence of any other

(note that the claim never said that the two came into contact, but that dosn't mater)

Digory, that just isn't true, I used to have "The Unstoppable Force" Back when I played WoW. I knew a warrior with "The Immovable Object" They didn't destroy eachother.

If the immovable object is destructible, why can't the unstoppable force be deflectable? If deflection is considered stoppage, why isn't destruction considered movement? Surely "immovable" and "unstoppable" are purely theoretical concepts like infinity?

The world needs to know.

If you think of it in terms of mass-energy equivalence (i.e. E=mc^2), then the unstoppable force (representing energy - probably at light speed) should turn into an immovable object (representing an infinitely - or at least extremely - massive particle of some sort) and vice versa. Whether this counts as a 'destruction' I don't know, but if the laws of conservation of matter and energy hold true then the object must still exist in some form or another.