7 Paradoxes We Bet You Can't Solve

7 paradoxes we bet you can't solve Page 1
F -X C h a n ge F -X C h a n ge
PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
a c k e r - s o ft a c k e r - s o ft
Home
About
Contact Us
Jobs
Privacy Police
Submit Content
enter search terms ...
19 COOL PRODUCTS
THAT ARE ALMOST THIS LAMP WILL AMAZE REBORN BABIES ARE SO I SEE DEAD PEOPLE 10 UNBELIEVABLE SMS THAT
ILLUSION
IMPOSSIBLE TO USE CHILDREN 15 COOLEST PILLOWS REALISTIC IT’S SCARY EVERYWHERE… TEXTING STORIES WORKS
ONLYFORMEN
The Quran and Universe

Analysis of Universal System in the light of modern science
www.AhmedHulusi .org/
’
7 paradoxes we bet you can t solve
Chris | Aug 13, 2010 | View Comments
Paradoxes are rather loosely defined, but can be said to be a true statement that defies intuition. Some have solutions, some don’ t. Here are 7 paradoxes we bet you can’t solve .
God -total Union with God

Why Jesus is the Only Way to
Union? The Answer May Surprise
You.
www .hallvworthington.com
Who Is Jesus ?
Learn about the life of Jesus and
what He did for you
Who- Jesus-Is.com
1. Free will
Image source - Wikipedia
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will?
ANSWER : This paradox is explained by God being outside of time –he knows the future just like he knows the past and the present. Just as the past does not interfere with our free will,
neither does the future.
2. Crocodile Dilemma
http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
A crocodile steals a son from his father, and promises to return the child if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do. What happens if the father guesses that the child will
not be returned to him?
ANSWER : There is no solution. If the crocodile keeps the child , he violates his rule , as the father predicted corretctly. If the crocodile returns the child, he still violates his rule as the
father’s prediction was wrong.
3. Grandfather paradox
Image source - zastavki .com
A man goes back in time , and kills his grandfather before the grandmother can meet his grandmother. This means that one of the man’s parents will not have been born, and the man in
turn, will not have been born. This would mean that he could not have travelled back in time after all, which means the grandfather would still be alive, and the traveller would have been
conceived allowing him to travel back in time and kill his grandfather.
ANSWER : The moment the time traveller changes something in the past, a parallel universe splits. This is supported by quantum mechanics.
4. Paradox of the heap
There are 1 ,000,000 grains of sand in a heap. If we remove one grain, it is still a heap. If we remove another grain, if it still a heap. If we continue removing one grain at a time , when
we’re left with one grain, is that still a heap?
ANSWER : Set a fixed boundary. If we said 10,000 grains of sand made a heap, then anything below it would not be a heap. Yet, it seems unreasonable to distinguish between 9 ,999
and 10,001 grains of sand. The solution can therefore be altered to say there is a fixed boundary, but they are not necessarily knowable .
5. Omnipotence paradox

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Can God create something so heavy He cannot lift it? If he can create something so heavy he can’ t lift, then his lack of strength means he is not omnipotent. If he can’t create
something so heavy he can’t lift , than he is not omnipotent.
ANSWER : The most common response is that as God is omnipotent, “can not lift ” does not make sense . Other answers include the question being a contradiction, like a “square
circle” .
6. Epimenides paradox
Epimenides, in a poem wrote : “The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!” However, Epimenides himself was a Cretan. If Epimenides is a Cretan and a liar, then his statement,
“The Cretans, always liars ” is a lie. This means all Cretans are truthful, then Epimenides ’ statement is the truth. The paradox will infinitally regress.
ANSWER : If Epimenides knew of at least one Cretan (other than himself) who is not a liar, his statement is a lie (because he asserts all) even though it correctly describes the speaker
as a liar.
7. Unstoppable force paradox
Image source - motivatedphotos.com
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? If the force moves the object, then it is not unmovable. If the force doesn ’t, the force is not unstoppable.
ANSWER : This situation can never happen , as if there is an unstoppable force , there couldn’t be an unmovable object and vice versa. More interestingly, there can never be an
unmovable object. An unmovable object would have to have infinite inertia, and therefore infinite mass. Infinite mass cannot exist in our finite universe, therefore an unmovable object
cannot exist.

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
Did you like this? Share it:
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
Suka 527 orang menyukai ini.
k
k
lic
lic
0
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Popular Stuff From All Over the Internet !!!!
I See Dead Those Photos Pointless 15 Awesome

People are Censored! Comics Things to Have
Everywhere… Nevertheless in Your High
Cool Tech Home
Wrath of God 30000 Lego Male Optical The 10 Scary

Lego Ship Pieces Creation Illusions Looking People
Brings The
Heavy Artillery
27 Vintage Ads 25 Coolest Big Cock ...xHo Toilets

That Would Be and Most Caddy Never Looked
Banned Today Unusual This Good
Keyboards
Why There Is No Such A Thing In The USA? Caged Chicks Biggest Movie Mistakes! Otaku! Don't Miss It!
Pepe's Savage Football Foul Body Scanner Harassment Four Hot Signs Of Attraction Pregnancy At 11
Nothing Fails Like This! The Media Will Never Tell You This! Illusion For Male's Brains Think You Know All About Naruto?

PD PD
!
W
W
Who Is Jesus? Who-Jesus- Is.com
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
Learn about the life of Jesus and what He did
to
to
for you
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
a c k e r - s o ft Origin of the Universe www. CosmicFingerprints.com a c k e r - s o ft
Did the Universe Come From - God?

Interpreting the Latest Results
Dark Energy Identified? www.darkenergyflow.com
Dark energy and the cosmos. Evolution by n s
and dark energy.
Is Jesus Really God? www .Y- Jesus.com/JesusGod
Scholars Examine the Facts About Jesus'
Claims to be God
Filed Under: Bizarre
Tags: answer , Crocodile Dilemma, featured , Free will, god, Grandfather paradox , intuition, Omnipotence paradox , Paradox of the heap, paradoxes, solutions
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
subscribe via email submit

Your information will not be shared. Ever.
About the Author
Add New Comment
Optional: Login below.
Type your comment here.
Post as …
Showing 71 comments
Sort by Popular now Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS
El 1 day ago
'Belief ' belies faith. Science has no faith whatsoever. 'Belief' does not require proof . It can use proof , but it does not require it.
Science requires proof .
Science cannot admit even one iota of belief therefore ; it is antithesis to science, just as ' faith' is.
So sorry to bust your bubble, but science is not 'believed' at all; except by those who aren't actually scientists.
ex: Martin is probably correct in what he says I [i]think[/i] he is correct ; I do not have belief or faith. If I think he could be wrong; then I will go reference the maths and the proofs gathered
by observation. There is not one iota of 'belief ' in that, nor ' faith' . Even if I do not look it up the option is there to prove or disprove what he said. It is science. Not belief .
_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _
When you disprove attribute after attribute and tenant after tenant that a god/religion holds, you pretty much disprove that god/religion.
Like Reply
justanotherday2 2 days ago

PD PD
!
It is simply ignorance when people resort to calling things stupid when they don' t or can' t understand .
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
1 . Free will is interesting . Solution: Just because we as humans are horribly predictable, does not strip us of our free will. If man was truly random, then(and only then)an all knowing
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
intelligence would be a paradox . Complement that with humans being little more than rats in a really big cage, then an intelligence far beyond our own becomes quite plausible.
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
2w w
w
w
. The
. t r key words
f t w here are "...will do." If it was "...plan to do" then it would not be a paradox . The solution is not to play. Like tic -tac-toe . Except for the fact that it was a taking crocodile , .tr w
a c k er-s o a c k e r - s o ft
the son was kidnapped --which is a serious crime. So you are dealing with a criminal mind. Refuse to answer and/or just attempt to retrieve the son by any means at all.
3 . We are assuming the man would not have been born. As if his grandmother would not have met someone else . The question suggests that under these conditions , the man born
would not follow the same path assuming a different gene pool. For example, since the paradox does not specify that the man built the time machine, his travel is no different than a trip
to Disney Land--just more devious. Even if he built it, does not mean someone else builds it and he uses it.
4 . As a society , we have accepted a standard for each unit of measure for a substance balanced by the tools we have to measure and the cost to measure. Gold in ounces; meats in
kilograms or pounds , wood by size inches or 192.16 etc. No one cares if they get 9999 grans in the heap or 10001. They do care if they get 9 ounces if they paid for 10 ounces. If gold
was a trillion an ounce then tools would become available to distinguish a new measure to accommodate those who want 1/trillionth of an ounce. Abstract means such as in financial
methods would also count as tools.
6 . Omnipotence is a tricky word and as per research: "...omnipotence is not found in the English Bible, nor any noun exactly corresponding to it in the original Hebrew or Greek." http://
www.searchgodsword.org/enc /isb/view .cgi? number=T6547
So, we are already off to a bad start. Then to put a nail in the coffin as it where, the Bible is clear about the fact that God can not lie . Omnipotence , as we have defined it, can not apply
to God. As with most things we try to apply to God in our limited minds.
7 . We first must define unstoppable and unmovable . Both definitions must conform before we can conclude that if both are true then neither are true. Example. An unstoppable force can
be deflected and still keep going unless we define it unstoppable meaning no change or exchange of energy. Unmovable would be defined the same. But even then, they both could still
exist until they meet. The collision would annihilate both. So they could exist. Just never met under observable conditions . Science tells us that the universe is quite large. Big enough to
easily avoid the formal introduction.
For those who always want to make science a God issue, get over it. Besides , science is a belief system as well. A good theory or hypothesis is "believed" until proven otherwise .
Moreover, one does not disprove or negate the other . Science is not the search to disprove of a God. Scientist do not wake up in the morning and say: (As God is my witness ) "Today is
the day I will definitively and finally disprove of a God." They say things like : "If I could just figure out X , I could save suffering children." "Or extend life a few more years and make those
years quality years." "Make a paralyzed person walk/run again with his/her children." "Empower those so they don 't have to be a burden to their loved ones." Or simply: "If I figure out X,
I would be rich , famous , get the noble prize."
Like Reply
Martin 5 days ago
@El, a point singularity would have infinite density but it doesn' t seem as though quantum mechanics would allow a point singularity to actually exist: point singularities would nevertheless
have finite total mass and hence finite momentum which means they have finite uncertainty in both momentum and location. If a particle has uncertainty in location then it is not a point
singularity because it is not located at a single point.
Oh and escape velocity is only greater than c in a black hole . I suppose a black hole would count as an "unmovable object" as you couldn 't very well walk up to it and push it (although it
is affected by gravity). The original author 's argument about no object having infinite mass did neglect the fact that a sufficiently massive object would collapse into a black hole . If you
said a black hole was an unmovable object then there is no unstoppable force as any force applied to push a black hole would just cause you to get sucked into it.
The original author should read up on fuzzy logic too . A pile that gets bigger and bigger passes through a being heap-ish to being heap-like to being a heap to being a big heap and so
on but there 's no well defined boundaries between heap- ish and heap-like. It 's like when my wife says the weather is cold and I say it is hot. Who 's right?
By the way, it occurred to me after I wrote my last comment that the real test of free will is whether or not the is already determined. If god exists "outside time " and the future is the
same as the past then free will is an illusion. In fact we don' t even need god to make this argument, as somebody already said: all you need is to show that the future has already
happened and cannot be changed and that means that you only think you are free to change it but really you can 't. Logically we can argue against free will anyway because every
decision we make is based on our memories of past experiences and as these things have already happened our decisions are predetermined (although not necessarily predictable,
which is why the illusion of free will is maintained).
Oh and I said that an infinite time loop arises from a "stable solution ". The correct term is "consistent solution". #' s 1 and 3 are actually related: having free will means having the ability
to determine your own future but if you could actually see the future then it would be the same paradox as # 3 because if you could see the future then it has already happened so how
can you change it?
Like Reply
slick vic 5 days ago
on #6 , actually, the negation of ALWAYS is not NEVER, but EXISTs (or 'sometimes')
"The Cretans, always liars " = "all cretans are liers "
in order for this to be a lie , there must be at least one Cretan that tells the truth ,
if Epimenides is a Cretan lier, and there is at least one Cretan that does not lie , there is no paradox
Like Reply
El 5 days ago
# 1) Either you have free will or you don't. If some entity knows what you will do , then it is not free will. If the entity does NOT know, then indeed it is free will.
# 4) The author is mixing up ' uncountable' with ' countable'. 'Heap ' is a descriptive term given to uncountable nouns. While you can count grains of sand, most people normally don' t,
anymore than they count how many grains of sugar to put in your tea. There is no paradox here, only weak 'thinking' .

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
# 5) The question is NOT a contradiction at all; it is a logical disproof of 'god 's ' omnipotence. One condition necessarily invalidates the other, yet both are required for omnipotence.
y
y
bu
bu
Therefore, omnipotence is a quality that cannot exist.
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
#w w
w
w
7). t rPoint Singularitiesw have infinite density. Since escape velocity is greater than c , and nothing can move faster than c, it is an irresistible force . .tr w
Gravity is the warping of space by objects . Black Holes were already in motion before they became black holes , and so retain this movement . If they can be affected by gravity of
passing objects, (such as another black hole ) then there is no 'immovable object' possible in our universe and the question is erroneous .
_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ __
Where do they get the unspecialized authors for this popular gossip-rag tripe ?
Philosophy classes ?
Stick to the gossip, not the technical stuff.
Like Reply
Martin 6 days ago
First of all, there 's no such thing as God so #1 and #5 are nonsense. It 's like asking how Santa Claus can deliver toys to all the children in one night. It' s based on the assumption that
the story is true in the first place .
Second, even if you assume that God exists then saying he is "outside time " doesn 't solve anything. If God were omnipotent as well as omniscient then God could simply create us all to
be perfect. The only solution then would be to assume that God were not benevolent and wanted a world in which people were not perfect and would suffer. Fortunately God doesn' t exist
so we don 't have to worry about an insane God who deliberately created us with flaws.
Finally, the claim that alternative timeline is "supported by quantum mechanics" is BS. The "many worlds " interpretation of quantum mechanics states that the universe behaves as if it
were the superposition of many worlds. But if the universe behaves this way then there cannot possibly be other worlds because the other worlds would already be included in the
superposition that makes our world . Instead , quantum mechanics predicts infinite loops. This is known as a "stable solution" and not the "Futurama solution " as Wally called it.
Oh and a heap is whatever number of grains of sand we consider to be a heap. If I want to call ten grains of sand a heap then that' s my business.
Like Reply
BWM 6 days ago
Eh, I' m just pointing out two problems with the solutions; A, there is no evidence of multiple universes. It is not supported by quantum mechanics. I don't know if that's a gross
misunderstanding of Schroedinger 's cat or something, but it's nonsense. B, the majority of physicists actually agree we CAN have infinite mass , aka , a singularity, aka, what makes a
black hole . I think such things are a theoretical construct not supported by objective facts, but still, it's generally accepted.
Like Reply
Glass Paint 6 days ago
I would love a poster of the picture you used for number seven, two of my favorite action stars and one of my favorite paradoxes.
Like Reply
Wally Kovacs 1 week ago
Re: Lucky 7
It depends on the nature of the immovable object. If it were a wall and the unstoppable force was approaching perpendicular to the wall, there would be a problem. However, if approached
from any other angle, while SOME speed would be lost in the redirection, not all would be lost.
If it was redirected at a 90 degree angle it would have to go from, for example, down to up in speed (requiring to be "stopped" vertically at some point) it would still maintain it's horizontal
momentum.
It 's also quite possible that the unstoppable force to pass through an immoveable object, etc.
Like Reply
kyle 1 week ago
Saying God is outside of time doesn' t solve that paradox at all
we can't change the past, so knowing the past isn' t the same as knowing the future
...if the past is fixed, that wouldn't effect our free will
If the future is fixed, we can' t

PD PD
!
W
W
Like Reply
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
Lucky 7
lic
lic
1 week ago
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
All of your answers regarding #7 are incorrect.
An unstoppable object requires it to have an infinite inertia ; that requires that its velocity NEVER decrease AT ALL. When an object rebounds, its velocity is decreased upon impact prior
to being redirected in ANY direction.
If the unstoppable object struck the unmovable object on a perpendicular plane, its velocity MUST REACH 0 before its force can be redirected in another direction. Therefor the
"redirection" theory is invalid on all accounts.
Like Reply
frosty2 1 week ago
Plus 1 to Raving Lunatic, I hate to say I am an atheist any more since so many are trying to turn it into a new sniveling "victim group" against the liberty of others.
Most paradoxes are simply non-existence proofs, they are descriptions of situations that cannot logically exist. Although some as mentioned are merely counter -intuitive.
frosty2
Like Reply
Raving Lunatic 1 week ago
# 2 - The answer is simple . The man says "You die", shoots the croc and kills it, takes back his son. Even if the son should be killed in the process , the croc never said it would
necessarily give the son back alive.
# 7 - If an unstoppable force meets and immovabnle object, it simply rebounds or otherwise circumvents the object, like a river flowing around an island. There's no paradox at all.
I agree, these are all pretty lame .
Real Paradox - Athiest who claim not to believe in God who are so incensed at the mere mention of him. If he doesn' t exist , why waste your energy getting your knickers in such a twist .
Just smirk smugly at the unenlightened and go your way. Or is it the creed of Athiests that you MUST piss in everyone 's cornflakes at every opportunity?
<----- Athiest
<----- Sick of athiests making athiests look like raging religious fanatics
Like Reply
Big Al 1 week ago
Number 7 is flawed. First the universe is assumed here to be finite, which is impossible as there can be no 'border ' to it ( the universe being everything 'out there ') .
Second the immovable object would serve to deflect the unstopable force , not stop it. It would continue in motion as would the object stay immobile.
Thirdly, the "universe" itself would be immovable as it is infinit . The object could therefore continue to move infinitly. The two would mutually coexist , and in effect are constantly meeting,
moving and remaining stationary at the same time.
Like Reply
Wally Kovacs 1 week ago
The heap paradox is one of many similar paradoxes that show off a certain kind of failure of logic that some people make .
In this case the idea that you either have a heap or don 't, but that a diminish heap can' t "suddenly" go from heap to non-heap. The logical falacy is that you don't just have two distinct
states , but instead a continuum. As you remove grains you have a smaller heap, the collection of grains becomes "less heaplike". There is a point where it is definitely a heap, and
eventually there will reach a point where it is definitely not. Somewhere in the middle would be where it stops being a heap, although people make disagree on the exact point.
It 's comparible to Zeno' s paradox, the tortoise race where, if a tortoise has a head start, no longer how fast you are you can never catch up because in the time it takes you to get to
where the Turtle was, it will have moved forward. Then when you get to where it has moved to, it will have moved forward again, etc ...
It seems to imply a contradiction, but it instead there is merely a logical flaw that creates the appearance of a contradiction.
1 - Free Will + Omnipotence does imply a contradiction, but the "existing outside of time" concept means that either (a ) God sees all possible timelines, in which case free will exists
because God knows what you will do, but also what you could have done instead and thus what you do is your choice or (b ) There is only a single continuum of time , in which case free
will doesn' t exist except as something we perceive as part of the
2 - This is a logic puzzle , plain and simple
3 - As with most time travel paradoxes there are a number of solutions. The first is that time travel ( into the past) as to prevent problems with causation that would be caused by it. The
solution provided that any change to the past creates a new timeline is another possibility . A third option is that any attempt to create a paradox would be resisted [time travel doesn' t
make murder easier ]. A fourth option would be the Futurama solution ... the assumptions about the past were incorrect and in fact any "changes " caused by time travel were actually what

PD PD
!
was supposed to happen , creating a different paradox with the stable time loop .
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
5 - Omnipotence encompasses a lot of things. An omnipotent being can do anything, even the logically impossible. So, He could create something even he couldn't lift, but then also be
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
able to lift it. Or, he COULD create it, but choosing not to, does not create something he can' t do. OR he does create it, and chooses not to TRY to lift it, again , remaining infallible if only
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
inwavoiding w
w
w
.tr something
ft w that could cause failure , etc. .tr w
6 - Similar to the crocodile dillemna, although the solution given points out the falacy. Humans are capable of making statements that are neither true nor untrue , but in this case it's even
simpler . Stating that all Cretans (including himself) are liars must be a lie . The reason for it not being true is because it would not be coming from a Cretan, but since most people are not
logical constructs, they will lie on occaision and tell the truth on occaision, he doesn 't even have to know of another non-liar Cretan, he could count himself.
7 - First of all, the second part is accurate, an immovable object can 't exist, but then again, so would an unstoppable force as it would constantly require more force to keep it from being
slowed by anything, a perpetual motion machine . Regardless, assuming they both existed, the collision has a logical conclusion that doesn' t result in either "losing" their title . The
immoveable object merely deflects the unstoppable force. The object remains unmoved and the force continues. Unstoppable doesn 't mean it can 't be slowed or redirected , merely that it
can' t be stopped
Like Reply
Arthur 1 week ago
This is stupid. It gave me some laughs at least. Some of the paradoxes that are raised are very interesting , but the "Answers " are unbelievably stupid. Especially the religious ones.
I laughed at "supported by quantum mechanics." Sure it's an interesting theory but the author of this article acts as if it's just scientific fact.
The ' heap' one is stupid. "Setting a fixed boundary" does not solve the paradox . I'm not even sure if this problem would be considered a paradox . It' s interesting, but the way it is
described here is so elementary.
Like Reply
Roland 1 week ago
1 . This paradox is only a paradox if we believe God is correct , or even exists. The answer is that time doesn' t exist and neither does choice . What we experience is merely a limited
scope if you will, and that limitation gives the impression of free will.
2 . Not a paradox . No where is it stated that the croc cannot return the child unless the father chooses correctly. It only states that the croc will return the child if the father chooses
correctly.
3 . Assuming time even exists is the fallacy.
4 . Duh! A heap requires a depth greater than 1 grain.
5 . Good one.
6 . Figured that out in grade school. Really not worthy.
7 . Doesn 't think of an immovable object redirecting an unstoppable force rather than stopping it.
Like Reply
t. 1 week ago
a thought but it seems that your 'solutions' to some of these ' paradoxes' change the nature of the paradox. Thus doesn 't solve it, just changes the rules.
Like Reply
Chileman2020 1 week ago
"im just annoyed that two of this guys paradoxes require you to believe in god" -
That' s a rather strange thing to be annoyed about! Another of the paradoxes requires you to believe that crocodiles can talk, yet you accepted that without any problem. One other
requires that you believe time travel to be possible, and you fell for that too . So you don' t have a problem in believing in two totally impossible situations , yet you do have a problem
believing in God? That' s the best paradox of all! :)
I propose that your response should be added as paradox # 8 , for which there is no solution....
Like Reply
coolbeans 2 weeks ago
this is a stupid compilation of "paradoxes "

1 . Why would we all believe in god
2 . i 'm not sure about this, but i think that the crocodile would just break his promise as he doesn' t seem to be binded by anything
3 . if you did that, a different timeline would be created where you are not born, yet you would remain there, if you traveled to the future(supposedly), you would still be in that timeline
4 . i 'm gonna skip this one because i really dont know about it

PD PD
!
5 . you must assume that there is a god first, and i disagree with that
W
O
O
N
N
6 . its a false statement, he is human so the statement doesn 't have to be true
y
y
bu
bu
7 . no such thing as an unstoppable force or an immovable object
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w ok if you criticize w
w
w
it's .tr ft w me but i really don' t care, im just annoyed that two of this guys paradoxes require you to believe in god .tr w
Like Reply
chatkiller 2 weeks ago
wtf is with all the arguing. he said it's a paradox meaning A paradox is a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. The term
is also used for an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non -dual truth (cf. k an, Catuskoti). Typically, the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the
puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together . The word paradox is often used interchangeably with
contradiction. It is also used to describe situations that are ironic.[1 ]
But many paradoxes, such as Curry's paradox , do not yet have universally accepted resolutions.
Sometimes the term paradox is used for situations that are merely surprising. The birthday paradox , for instance , is unexpected but perfectly logical. The logician Willard V. O . Quine
distinguishes falsidical paradoxes, which are seemingly valid, logical demonstrations of absurdities, from veridical paradoxes, such as the birthday paradox , which are seeming
absurdities that are nevertheless true.[2 ] Paradoxes in economics tend to be the veridical type , typically counterintuitive outcomes of economic theory, such as Simpson' s paradox. In
literature a paradox can be any contradictory or obviously untrue statement, which resolves itself upon later inspection.
Contents
[hide ]
Like Reply
alex 2 weeks ago
, you have:
1 . Displayed a complete inability to recognize a paradox , scoring 2 out of 7 .

2 . Displayed a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, mistaking a fanciful postulate with an established theory.
3 . Made theologians throughout the world cringe , whilst simultaneously displaying a pseudo -intellectual attempt at religious wordplay.
4 . Only somewhat comprehended elementary classical mechanics, whilst simultaneously ignoring it in favor of 'time travel' .
Like Reply
Doopy 2 weeks ago
. see that someone has mentioned the unstoppable force changing direction, or passing through the immovable object. If it didn't, it would release enough energy to destroy the universe
in a cataclysmic explosion.
Yeah , that 's what happens. Everyone dies.
So after reading the comments about # 1 I'll clarify some things that a few people have confused. Assuming God to be as described in the Bible, we know Him to be omnipotent. As a
result of His omnipotence we know that He can access any point in time He so desires. This is kind of like when I drag the time line around when I edit video . I can also effect the
outcome of the video with my editing tools, or I can choose not to effect the outcome . Obviously my footage has no free will, but that wouldn't change my ability to move about the time
line.
Watching the future doesn' t change free will anymore than watching the present. The Bible often refers to eternity , which is interpreted by many as a vast and all-consuming present. In
layman's terms , to something eternal all of the past and all of the future are one big right-now.
And to answer Lithium's question, without even being Catholic : Who said anything about need. He can' t just want to be loved and served? People who assume an omnipotent being
can' t make an arbitrary decision confuse me.
Like Reply
king will 2 weeks ago
people, there us a God and whoever does not believe will have to do that some time to come . No doubt about that. Better see the light when its still early
Like Reply
xxxian 2 weeks ago
time travel to the past is impossible... time travel theories are all flawed .. you cannot stop time by traveling faster than light or bending dimensions...
time is constantly moving and it does not stop in hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds , nanoseconds and so on and so forth. so how can you stop time when slowing it down is
impossible...
for example you travelled to the past lets say 1 hour from now...

PD PD
!
the question is did the time in the past stops in that 1 hour mark? ..
W
O
O
N
N
and the answer is no it keeps on moving and yes your are right where you exactly have been before the travel...
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
Like Reply
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
R315r4 z0 r 2 weeks ago
Also, for anyone who doesn 't understand the crocodile one, here is another way to think about it (this is how I learned of this paradox) :
True or False:
It 's true that you will answer with false.
If you answer 'true' then you would be wrong because you said you would say false.
If you answer 'false' then you would be wrong because the statement had been in fact true.
Like Reply
R315r4 z0 r 2 weeks ago
# 1 and # 4 are bad examples. The rest are pretty good and I' ve heard of them all before.
The answer to #1 is wrong. If there is a set future, then there is no free will; just the illusion of free will. If God knows what we will do in the future, then we therefore do not have free will.
Living in and out of time doesn' t change anything.
If someone invents a time machine and if that person has the ability to travel and see the future, then that would be living proof that we do not posses free will.
Furthermore, that would also mean that it's an impossibility to have omnipotence. Because, to be omnipotent, you would therefore have to have knowledge of all.
If we DO have free will, then there cannot be a visible future. However, if that 's the case and you are unable to have knowledge of the future, then you can' t be omnipotent.
If we DON' T have free will, just the illusion of it, then it is possible to see and visit the future. But that would also mean that God lied about giving us free will.
As for # 4, that one was just stupid. It 's not a paradox at all. A heap of something is a heap of something. The word heap implies that there is more than one thing piled on top of one
another. If only one thing remains, then it can't be considered a heap. It simply isn't a paradox no matter how you look at it.
Like Reply
G. Albert 2 weeks ago
I respect intelligent atheists, there 's a lot of them. The above isn't one of them (no proof, bad grammar, etc.)
Like Reply
Vincent 3 weeks ago
youre retarded. i had all these things i was gonna say but i bet people have said enough so ill just say youre dumb and there is no god
Like Reply
H.J. Metaphor 3 weeks ago
Pave 3Ant, thank you for your input. I agree with much of what you have said, although I would like to add a few comments .
Regarding question 3, your statement that travelling back in time would create an alternate reality, in which killing your own grandfather does not affect your own existance , because he
is not your actual grandfather, merely a parallel version , is correct , if you assume the idea of an alternate reality, or dimension. Many scientists have theorised that not only is this
possible , but that they might exist . This is considered to be the fifth dimension , the fourth being time . However, if we assume this to be false, and that a person managed to travel back
in time to a point before they existed , and killed an ancestor of theirs , what would happen ? In theory, either this would create a paradox, or an alternate set of circumstances would
unfold to explain this event, such as an alternate candidate appearing, and becoming your ancestor, and there would be no paradox .
Regarding question 5, I still maintain that there is no paradox . The question is whether god could create an object so heavy he would be unable to lift it. Creating such an object must be
possible for an omnipotent creature, however it would involve giving up his omnipotency, at the point of creation . If the question was altered to "can an omnipotent being create an object
so heavy that an omnipotent being could not lift it?" (whether refering to the same being , but maintaining omnipotence, or to another omnipotent being), this would create a paradox , as
the object and the omnipotent nature would have to co-exist. I assume this is what the original question was aiming at. In this situation , if the omnipotent being cannot create such an
object, they are not omnipotent, but if they can, then the being unable to lift it would not be omnipotent, thus it is impossible. The problem is in creating a limit, while maintaining limitess
power, which cannot be done. I believe that this question is very similar in nature to the unstoppable force vs . immovable object problem; what happens when an omnipotent being tries to
lift an object created to be so heavy that omnipotent beings cannot lift it? It just sounds better describing it as a force .
Regarding 6, "If , in fact, the statement were true, it would have to be false… and vice versa" . Sorry , but this is wrong, if the statement "The Cretans, always liars " was false, then it does
not mean that the cretans can never lie , only that the don' t have to lie , but can tell lies and truth, therefore the statement could be one of the occasions when he's lying .
There is also the possibilty , not mentioned , of "relative truth", that is to say that a person is telling what they believe to be the truth, when in fact what they are saying is false; they are
not lying , and vice versa, if the say what they believe to be a lie , when it is true, they are not telling the truth. For example, if I told a man I had never met that my name was Bob, when it
wasn 't, and he told another man my was Bob, he is telling that man the truth, although the information given is incorrect, and if he tells the man that my name is something else , he
is lying to the man, even if he accurately guesses my true name, making the information correct . This means that the statement could be believed to be a lie, when it is actually true,
making it technically a lie, and therefore proving itself to be correct .

PD PD
!
I' m sorry to anyone reading this , who finds it a bit confusing. It can take a while to get your head around it. =]
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
Regarding question 7, I' m not sure I fully understand what you are saying , I may need further clarification, so if this is wrong, then I' m sorry , but surely breaking involves movement.
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
When you speak of an immovable object breaking, surely the broken pieces would have to remain in place , otherwise the object was not immovable, and I don' t see how merely breaking,
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w staying in thewsame place, would allow for the unstoppable force to carry on (if it doesn 't then it isn' t unstoppable). w
w
w
but.tr ft .tr w
"The comment that an object of infinite mass could not exist in “our finite universe” needs defending; on the one hand, you would need to establish that our universe is indeed finite; on
the other hand, if the universe were indeed of finite *size*, that would not logically contradict the concept of infinite *mass* " - very true, infinite mass could exist within a finite size, in
theory. I think the idea of a "Finite Universe" refers instead to the limit of mass, and that it is impossible to gather infinite mass together, if you do not have infinite mass . However, as this
is only theoretical, we can simply assume this was not so , and bypass the problem, in theory.
p .s . It is good to see more people debating possible solutions to the problems , rather then simply using religious rhetoric and abuse. Thank you.
Like Reply
Pokit 3 weeks ago
whoever wrote this stuff is kinda dumb

first off there 's no god
second there' s no crocodiles they 're a myth.
stupid
Like Reply
Pave3Ant 3 weeks ago
Thank -you for this interesting collection.
A paradox is a set of propositions that are (logically) mutually exclusive . I have heard it stated that “aporia ” is the term for a “paradox ” (so to speak) that might be “solvable” — that is:
that is not really a paradox after all.
1 Free Will
I have never, ever come across anything that even *suggests that there might be * *any* reason to believe that God is outside of time, apart from the fact that this serves as a
convenient ( albeit sadly incoherent) explanation of how God might control the future. (I am not going to try to explain why this is incoherent; a complete and proper explanation would be
too long, and any explanation I try usually meets with blank looks and ready disagreement anyway. (For those with open and capable minds: one way of expressing the problem is that
this would mean that He could also control the past. “Richard” also makes a good point; the tenet that God is “outside” of time seems to suggest that he could not participate in it.
“H.J.Metaphor” also makes a good point; there is a relevant difference between seeing a situation and changing it.) )
The tenet that God is omnipotent implies that He *can* do anything (that He wants to), not that He *always * does *everything that is possible* . In other words, there is no conflict
between God being omnipotent and me having free will, except where what I want and what God wants conflict.
This , in turn, is not apt to establish that I do not have free will, any more than the existence of (and the actions of) the police force does.
Where the problem exists is in the tension between the tenets that , on the one hand, I have free will *and God does not constrain my actions *, and , on the other hand, the tenet that God
does indeed somehow influence the outcomes of events and situations.
This is, indeed, a “paradox ” that requires a “solution” , for Christians , since (ostensibly) they believe both of the above propositions . (If the world was not against only Christianity ,
everyone would even-handedly discuss this as a problem for all religions of some particular type (that includes Christianity).) For my money, the tenet that God can *influence* people
(that is, apart from the simple use of force) goes a long way towards reconciling the two. That is, simply, that the first proposition is misleading.
2 Crocodile Dilemma
[Don ’t bother to read this ; it is a lengthy analysis of a poorly-worded question .]
I am thinking that this has been worded incorrectly , or at least that the scenario needs more fleshing out, as follows.
If the father guesses that the crocodile will return the child, and if the crocodile does this, there is no conflict; similarly, if the father guesses that the crocodile will not, and it does not,
there is no conflict.
If , conversely, the crocodile did differently from what the father guessed, this would mean that the crocodile’s promise was void. Under these conditions , whatever it was that the crocodile
did would be free.
The idea , hypothetically, one imagines, is for the father to secure the release of his child. This would require him to make a correct guess. However, if he guesses correctly that the
crocodile will return the child , then his guess does nothing towards securing the child , since that has already happened. (Again : if he guesses that the child will be returned , but it is not,
the crocodile ’s promise is voided, so the father has no power to secure the child’s release, in that permutation.)

PD PD
!
If he seeks to secure the release of the child by guessing that the crocodile will not return it, on the grounds that guessing that it will be returned does nothing (as I have just described)…
W
O
O
N
N
then this would create a conflict in the event that the crocodile did not return the child. ( Again: if the crocodile had returned the child, contrarily to the guess, its promise would be void.) If
y
y
bu
bu
two events are allowed , this would permit a second one is which the crocodile now returned the child, but that seems to violate the spirit of the problem. Thus, the aforesaid conflict would
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
not help.
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
In summary: as the problem is stated , the bottom line is what the crocodile actually does; what the father guesses , and the crocodile making a promise concerning this, serves merely to
create the possibility that it might turn out that counts as breaking a promise (where whether or not this promise will obtain is contingent on future unknowns).
It seems that the problem would be more interesting if the crocodile chose one course or the other, without divulging its choice, before the father made his guess. This would mean that
the guess was about, not what the crocodile ended up doing after the event, but rather what choice the crocodile made . However, as long as the crocodile does what it has chosen to,
this turns out to be no different from the foregoing version, practically.
In other words, this would be different only if the crocodile mentally selected one of the two alternatives, without this meaning that it would actually carry it out. However, this reduces to a
simple guessing game.
Another alternative would be for the father to guess what the crocodile would do, but not divulge this until after the event. However, this would simply mean that the crocodile would not find
out whether or not what it did violated a promise until after it had done it.
As noted in the question , a conflict appears if the father guesses correctly that the crocodile will not return the child. This means that the historical event is that the crocodile did not, but
that the crocodile is now bound by a promise to enact the return.
This is not paradoxical, since the conflict is between , not two propositions about how the real world is, but between the latter and what the crocodile said. The outcome would be that,
under that particular permutation, what the crocodile promised was not reflected in what actually happened. This boils down to a rash promise on the part of the crocodile (as long as we
make the dubious assumption that it did not intend to specifically do the opposite of whatever the father guessed, whensoever it suited it.)
All in all, rather a strange scenario. The solution, of course, is for the father to point all the above out to the crocodile , rather than getting involved in it. Conversely, that would not get the
child back either .
3 Killing one’s own Grandfather
[Note to some other responders: I have read that scientists have indeed managed to make a particle travel backwards in time.]
Of course, we should point out that this is not something one should try at home, for the very reasons described.
As for the idea that something is supported by quantum mechanics… that is like saying that it is endorsed by Epimenides the Cretan.
Arguably, the time traveller changes the past simply by going there. (If we assume that this is a single event, as opposed to a process of his moving backwards in time ) the parallel
universe would be created by, and at the time of, his arriving in it. He would then be (by family) the offspring of someone from a (now) parallel universe … but in all other senses newly
arrived in an independent reality. Killing the man who was now the parallel of the man in the other universe who was his grandfather would now constitute nothing more than an ordinary
murder.
The real question (which no doubt quantum accounting can explain) is that of where all the extra matter comes from. Actually, I suspect that the said parallel universe consists of only the
person who travelled backwards in time… which seems to suggest that he would not survive for very long. This would also mean that he would have little chance of killing his grandfather,
since he would not be there.
But, yes , it is much more interesting and exciting the other way.
That said… for my money , quantum physics has specific problems (that I can explain) , in virtue of which most of it is bunkum… and time travel is possible only in the sense of moving
backwards in time , and then only such that no paradoxes are created… so the picture is that the idea of a grown-man-sized amount of matter surviving is radically and spectacularly
unlikely . If , however, it did, it could indeed kill its own grandfather . Conversely, the constraint, as I understand it, is that the apparatus using which he travelled backwards in time would
have to be operating the whole process , and would take him as a (physical) input. This preclude him travelling back to a time before he existed .
But I am ignoring the theoretical paradox.
Yes.
4 Heap Paradox
[This paradox was generated by some Greek philosopher. I do not know offhand who it was either, but you probably should take the trouble to mention the chap.]
If it is “unreasonable” to distinguish between two heap-candidates of similar sizes, then it can not be true that there is a fixed boundary.
I took the trouble to look up, on plato.stanford.edu (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) , who it was that generated this paradox ; it was Sorites . The article I found also notes that the
core problem is “vagueness”. That is to say that the term “ heap” is not such that some specific boundary rules something in or out as a heap… and , more particularly, that something a
little bit smaller might be considered in one situation ( or by one person) to be a heap, where something a little bit bigger was not in (or by) another .
One could indeed set a boundary, but, if this were supposed to generalize , that would constitute redefining the term.

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
5 Omnipotence
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
If wGod w
w
w
. t r is able to
f t wlift absolutely anything, then the concept of something existing, that He could not lift, would be logically incoherent. .tr w
Conversely, it would be paradoxical (by the same token ) if , hypothetically, on the one hand God could lift absolutely anything, and on the other hand there were an object that he could not
lift .
Stipulating that God had to create the object in question presupposes the above
(hypothetical) paradox; it is not itself what generates the paradox .
Similarly, claiming that it is particularly because of a lack of strength that God can not lift the object in question (and that this is a problem) again presupposes the paradox (that He both
could, and could not, lift the object).
The noted claims about the idea not making sense or being a contradiction have to do with the fact that ( presupposing that God exists and is omnipotent) the propositions are indeed
mutually exclusive ; they do not count as additional insights nor explanations.
6 Epimenides the Cretan
If , in fact, the statement were true, it would have to be false… and vice versa.
However, there is a difference between a false proposition and a paradox.
7 Irresistible Force/ Immovable Object
For a force to move an object, it must be mediated by something physical. If there really were an irresistible force trying to move an immovable object, what would happen would be that
would break. Postulating two immovable objects does not change this , as being immovable is not the same as being unbreakable .
The exception to the above is in the case of fields — assuming that these exist without being mediated by gravitons , magnetismons and the such. However, there is still a difficulty with
the question , pertinent to the physical aspect; all that would happen is that the force would move — whatever that might mean.
(Of course, you could get the thing to work by stipulating two immovable, unbreakable objects . However, you would have to stipulate also • that the laws of physics were such that the
force was fully and only mediated by one of the objects , and • that the force was of a kind such as to move objects. Even then, there is still the question of what it means, practically, that
the objects are immovable; it seems to be required, practically, that they be physically joined by something. If that something were unbreakable, and the joins were unbreakable , then we
might have a goer . But it does all seem rather artificial by this stage .)
The comment that an object of infinite mass could not exist in “our finite universe” needs defending; on the one hand, you would need to establish that our universe is indeed finite; on the
other hand, if the universe were indeed of finite *size*, that would not logically contradict the concept of infinite *mass* .
Like Reply
Jonathan 3 weeks ago
Is it just me, or the strongest arguments of antitheists in the form of questions? The existence of a question proves one of two things 1) you have not done your research, or 2) you' ve
come to be satisfied with utter obscurity. I have yet to see comments on things like these that have some sort of academic integrity (MarkR is an exception ). Theists, be proud that you
have foundation in one of the most solid ideologies in history. Atheists, true theists acknowledge your God-given gift of individuality (whether you agree or not), so if you are an atheist,
know your beliefs and know you don't have to defend them to anyone or anything. Anyone in between is either a not-well-informed theist ( for whom I recommend visiting RZIM.org or
BeThinking.org) or an antitheist who should be left alone since their identity hinges on the existence of doubt and uncertainty (and for whom I also recommend the sites above ^). May
personal choice be dissociated from the academia, and may truth reign supreme.
Like Reply
Angel Karma 3 weeks ago
An unstoppable force IS an unmovable object! Karma ,x
Like Reply
H.J. Metaphor 4 weeks ago
Um,JacobF, potent means power. Doctors refer to the potency of sperm, as well as other bodily fluids /functions, meaning how well it accomplishes the task it was designed for, not where
it is . Omnipotent means all powerful (omni is all or entirely or completely), whereas omniscient means all knowing, scient meaning knowledge , hence science. While you might be able to
argue that knowledge is power, I think you might have made a mistake here, sorry. ;)
Like Reply

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
JacobF 1 month ago
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
#w
5 use correct grammar, omnipotence is being everywhere at once, so being everywhere has nothing to do with lifting something heavy, the word you need is omniscient which means all
ar
ar
w
w
w
.t
ra c ft w .tr
a c k e r - s o ft
w
powerfulk er-s o
Like Reply
ZL 1 month ago
More like , if God is omnipotent and omniscient, via the events of the creation , then he knowingly set into motion everything that would take place (Adam eating the apple, people going to
hell, murder, ect..).
So, Adam eating the apple and, therefore , all sin is a direct consequence of God's planning .
God is an evil son of a gun... or, more likely, he doesn 't exist.
Like
Jamie 1 month ago
Ok, "unstoppable force " is not infinite inertia , it is FORCE THAT DOES NOT STOP. If I push my hand against the wall I'm exerting force . The wall does not move, but there is still force . If
I were to continue pushing forever , the force would never stop.
Gravity is an "unstoppable force ." Unless you can find a way to stop the force of gravity, then it's there . Putting an immovable object in the way doesn' t mean there 's no force . No
paradox here. Just a stupid movie tagline.
Like Reply
H.J. Metaphor 1 month ago
Joshua, No Offense, but you seem pretty stupid to me. Sorry , but that' s the impression you're giving off.
The whole point of critical thinking and the source of fun is in arguing about it and trying to come up with solutions.
Secondly , I've studied Christianity , and while I DON 'T claim to know everything about it, I do insist that I know enough to comment upon it. And the reason people are still "re- interpreting"
the bible is because it was written by HUMANS, thousands of years ago, and is no longer fully relevant to modern life. SOME parts are, but the majority is not. Perhaps this is why most
Christians don' t follow the teachings of the bible completely, but rather pick and choose which parts to obey.
"But, the beauty in that shows we are just passionate humans. Not Gods." - Who said we 're gods????
"Its a very selfish thing to state their is no God to billions of people and shows you need some growing and love for your fellow man" - WHAT? Is it selfish to tell people that santa isn' t
real? And if your belief can' t stand up to questioning or confrontation, then you might want to re-evaluate how much you really believe: Even Christ' s belief' s were tested in the bible, and
he came close to failing. Also, the fact that I DO love my fellow man is what is causing me to try to help them understand the world better, rather then just pointing at anything they don't
understand and saying "God!".
"even superman in his ultimate state is finite and no matter how much you throw on him isn’t omnipotent." - Yes, you absolute MORON. If Superman (an alien with advanced abilities)
was Omnipotent , then he would BE god. And what would be the point in creating a fictional character with no weaknesses: How would the baddies defeat him? Where would the suspense
come from? Only an IDIOT would expect a superhero to be all powerful.
"man could not have thought of God of his own accord because man can’t get past set barriers" - He was able to overcome the idea of the world being flat, and the earth being center of
the universe , as well as the idea of there being things too small to be visible to the naked eye ( before seeing them), and even the ideas of time travel and other concepts from sci-fi , but
you think he can 't imagine a being simply deemed to be "All Powerful". This argument would hold some weight if he had percieved how this being would function, which we can't, or if
humans had put any thought into this "God" rather then just saying he 's omnipotent. According to the bible, he looks exactly like a human man, because he created Adam in his own
image. That' s about as describtive as it gets, because people back then weren't able to think up a more realistic god, leading to contradictions, such as him being all loving and all
powerful, but still allowing evil to exist, or the fact that we were made in his image, but are inherently evil.
"To weigh God is to restrict him in one dimension, Gods known to exist in 3 at once" - No-one is trying to weigh god . We are asking about his ability to lift objects , and more importantly
whether it is possible for an omnipotent people to place limits upon himself, which he must be capable of doing , in order to truly be omnipotent. Secondly , humans exist in at least 4
dimensions, the fourth being time , the fifth being alternate realities (which have yet to be proven): Are you saying that god is LESS then a human??
"We are not perfect so stop acting like we have all the answers because we don’t" - The whole point of this page is discussing things we don 't know the answer to. How exactly are we
acting like we have all the answers ??
"people can not alter the circumstances by saying the immovable object can shift and the unstoppable force may pass." - I'm 99-100% sure that no -one mentioned the object "shifting",
but please correct me, if i' m wrong about this . If the object shifts , then it's not immovable , obviously. What people have discussed is the idea that the FORCE would be shifted/deflected ,
although this is equally wrong as it would not be unstoppable. They have also been discussing possible circumstances in which an immovable object could exist, which is the point of the
paradox . I myself commented upon ChickinSammich' s theory of the force passing through the object, because an object that is out of phase would fit the definition of immovable , but
NEITHER of US mentioned the object shifting, either, as this would be against the rules of an object being out of phase .
"And in finite space the unstoppable force would come right back to the immovable object." - WRONG!! Two parrellel lines will NEVER meet, in finite space . An object moving in a fixed
trajectory will NEVER meet a fixed point that is not within it's trajectory , regardless of how unstoppable it may be. Just because the force is unstoppable, doesn 't mean that it will pass
through every single point in finite space .
"Stop the argueing and enjoy the fun in the paradoxes (a word made to binding questions )." - The arguing IS the fun. The point of this page is discussing possible solutions to these

PD PD
!
paradoxes and arguing about them. Also, what the hell are binding questions??
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
Anyway, please continue to post or discuss possible solutions, not to insult other people or question theology. Thank you! xx
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w Like Reply .tr w
joshua 1 month ago
... * people know how to take the joys out of critical thinking don't they ? To all the people knocking Christians ( that's who your knocking once you hear God) need to research a little
better. You heat a concept out of your capabilities of thought and right it off as impossible. That's sad to be honest, you' ve shown the limits of your mind.
To the ones who think they understand christianity. Research the word a little better. Its a vast amount of knowledge that requires more then a few months to break down. Bible scholars
are still researching the word this very day finding out things they mis-interpretted from the beginning of the research. People realise that one of the things that instructed to christians are
to not argue. So yes some people aren't following the word to a T on their beliefs. But, the beauty in that shows we are just passionate humans. Not Gods.
Its a very selfish thing to state their is no God to billions of people and shows you need some growing and love for your fellow man. I can say that a lot of paradox are created only
because we as humans are limited beings and therefore put limits on everything we do. Which brings me to a realisation that man could not have thought of God of his own accord
because man can't get past set barriers. It isn't possible for man to think it up, even superman in his ultimate state is finite and no matter how much you throw on him isn't omnipotent. A
man made design. To weigh God is to restrict him in one dimension, Gods known to exist in 3 at once.
So, my topic is stop babbling like children and continue your studies . We are not perfect so stop acting like we have all the answers because we don' t. The immovable . Object to the
unstoppable force is a theoretical answer and people can not alter the circumstances by saying the immovable object can shift and the unstoppable force may pass. That stops the
immovable object from being immovable because it shifted. And shifting is a movement. And in finite space the unstoppable force would come right back to the immovable object.
Stop the argueing and enjoy the fun in the paradoxes (a word made to binding questions) .
Overall everyones answers were nice and thought provoking,
Like Reply
Derp 1 month ago
Pfft... Who writes this crap, five year-olds?
Like Reply
Smoore 1 month ago
For #5 , the answer is much simpler. If God created the universe then He created gravity, because gravity along with the universe. Just as He is outside time because He created it, the
rules of gravity don't apply to Him.
Furthermore, just because God is omnipotent doesn' t mean He will do everything. He is the source of reason and logic, and it is illogical to imagine an infinite creator being bound by a
finite creation. Since this scenario is illogical, it can only exist in words.
Like Reply
Chaunseypeppertooth 1 month ago
. can not believe the massive hoard of dumb -asses commenting on this article. These questions aren't meant to be literal. Some are fairly stupid, especially with the half brained
explanations for each, but these are hypothetical questions with no answer. Don 't come up with "simple " answers by changing the parameters of the question : "the unstoppable force
would simply be redirected". And don't regurgitate pseudo religious rhetoric with little to no proper syntax, babbling on about "light" and "dark " like we live in some Lord of the Rings world.
I don't usually care to comment but, you are all a bunch of complete Melvins.
Like Reply
2 additional points.
1 ) ChickinSammich has made an excellent point, that no -one has appreciated. The waterfall analogy IS flawed , but clever. If an object was placed "out of phase " as the physicists call it,
all other objects would pass straight through it. Therefore there would be no way to move it, as no force could be applied to it, in theory, and it would indeed become "an immovable
object", and therefore any force , even an unstoppable one would pass straight through this. You can see this effect in cartoons and sci-fi shows all the time ( e.g. cartoon ghosts
travelling through walls ).
This also raises another paradox: if I can pass through walls, why don' t I fall through the floor ? As gravity is pulling me downwards , any attempt to make myself able to travel through
solid objects would cause me to fall straight downwards.
2 ) To Aerospider: Paradoxes can exist, these are merely bad attempts at paradoxes. Please explain: "This statement is false." Or "The following sentence is a lie. The preceding
sentence is true."
Just because you have not seen something does not mean it does not and cannot exist.
This is why athiests are wrong. You cannot insist something DOESN 'T exist if you cannot prove it. Religious people cannot prove it either and should stop trying to shove their opinions
down other people' s throat and insisting that ONLY they are right, especially since the majority do not follow their own religions . How many christians do you see burning bulls upon
altars, to provide a scent pleasing to the lord, although they happily argue against homosexuality, which is condemned in the same book as burning a bull is insisted upon. Islam forbids
murder, but there are islamic terrorists and suicide bombers. All religions forbid murder, but it is widely accepted that more wars have been fought in the name of religion then any other

PD PD
!
Wallp (the real reason may have been money , but religion was given as the reason) in history. I am an Agnostic, meaning that I neither insist that God does not exist and all religions are
W
O
O
N
N
wrong, nor do I accept any religion or idea of god as fact, without appropriate evidence. If I recieved such evidence, then and only then would I accept one of these possibilities.
y
y
bu
bu
All religious and atheist people should stop spewing hatred at each other for their opinions. If you cannot accept someone else having opinions, and be willing to question your own in
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
relation to them, and hopefully prove them right, then your refusal to question your beliefs shows you do not truly believe them and refusing to accept that someone else has a different
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
belief
. t r and trying
f t wto change their beliefs is disrespectful and arrogant. .tr w
Like Reply
These really aren' t all that hard (some answers as above ):

1 ) Knowing the future , as long as you don' t interfere, does not affect free will.
2 ) Giving the child back does not break the rules. If you re- word it to prevent this, he could give the child back then snatch it again and keep it, thus the child is both returned and not
returned to the father.
3 ) It would be impossible to travel back through time to DELIBERATELY change the past and succeed, as if you succeeded, you would no longer need to go back, and if you didn't go
back then time would not have been changed ( see: "the time machine ", the film, with Samantha Mumba). If you accidently went back in time and killed your ancester, you couldn' t cease
to exist , as matter CANNOT be destroyed, so either you would be altered to fit your new lineage, or your new ancesters would pass on exactly the right genes to create you, despite the
low probability of this.
4 ) Heap is a relative term, and therefore can be applied to any number of items. A better way of phrasing this is: "If you remove a grain of sand from a heap, is it still a heap? If so, what
happens when there is only only grain left?" Of course the answer is that it may or may not still be a heap, depending on how many grains there are and who you ask.
5 ) THE MOST SIMPLE OF ALL. The answer is: Yes!
God, being omnipotent, can create anything and do anything. Therefore he COULD create something so heavy he would be unable to lift it, however if he DID, then he would no longer
be omnipotent. Surely god can choose to give up his omnipotentcy, otherwise he is not truly omnipotent. It is possible that he has already given it up , thus explaining the sorry state of the
modern world, maybe after being tricked by a clever mortal, or the devil.
6 ) A simple misunderstanding of the question . As mentioned , his statement as a whole could be a lie , allowing the segment calling all cretans liars to be true in and of itself. But the
answer is simpler then that. If I say it all men are gay, this is a lie , but the fact that it is a lie means that NOT ALL men are gay, NOT that ALL men are NOT gay. By saying that all
cretans are liars, you cannot asume that only two possibilities exist: all are liars OR none are liars. Some may be liars are others are not.
7 ) An immovable object IS impossible, as it would require infinite mass. However this paradox began as "what is a spear that could puncture any shield met a shield that could block any
spear?" based on wild claims made by traders. The answer of deflection, while valid , is wrong, as the force is stopped, in a manner, and in this case the spear is blocked . This is the only
true paradox , as it requires impossible things to be real, and therefore is impossible to know.
Like Reply
Jeremy 1 month ago
@#5
God is so infinitely powerful that he cannot create something so heavy that he himself cannot lift it.
Like Reply
Rioridan 1 month ago
We can solve # 6 much more cleanly using logic. "The Cretans, always liars ..." can be translated to symbolic logic as "FOR ALL Cretans x, x is a liar..."
The negation of this is not "FOR ALL Cretans x, x is NOT a liar," it is "THERE EXISTS AT LEAST ONE Cretan x such that x is NOT a liar." Thus this is not a paradox at all; the speaker
is quite clearly a liar.
Like Reply
waide 1 month ago
the last one: an immovable object would have to have infinite mass ( and thus infinite inertia ) to remain immovable, an unstoppable object would also have to have infinite mass
(therefore infinite inertia ) to remain unstoppable, two objects of infinite mass cannot exist in the same universe, it is ridiculous to believe that the unstoppable object would simply deflect.
Like Reply
ray 1 month ago
1 . Free will is an illusion, question is moot.

2 . Any language rich enough to be useful inherently must allow paradox questions (incompleteness thereom).
4 . The heap is purely a mental concept, so a heap is simply whatever we say it is. In fact, a lot of words exist merely for such convenience, like 'river' , 'ocean', etc.
5 . God is not a proven real entity, question is moot.
6 . See #2 .
7 . A variation on #2 .
Like Reply
http://urbantitan.com/wp-content/plugins/disqus-comment-system/xd_receiver.htm?fb_xd_fragment#?=&cb=f1a36feb3060d&relation=pa... 01/11/2010 17:12:47

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
JackW 1 month ago
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
Wow, what' s with THE non-religious asshole who goes by the name of Nick?
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
If you assume that all religious people are all assholes, you're making a mighty fool out of yourself. That would be doing injustice and severely disrespecting others' beliefs - keep in mind
that there are some religious folks out there who accept your beliefs in a God, or lack thereof . Hypocrisy in this case is more bitter than it is sweet.
Prodigz, it' s Buddhist, not ' budist'. Your frequent grammatical errors also leads to faults in your arguments, if you can even call it that. If studied more thoroughly and if you were
knowledgeable enough to understand, Buddhist philosophies aren' t equivalent to mdoern-day science. As you obviously aren' t aware of, Buddhists believe in the divine act of
reincarnation , which is basically rebirth in another form. How would you be able to explain that in scientific terms ?
I would also like to point out that the word you probably wanted to use is ' perspective', not ' prospective'. Prospective' s definition is what you anticipate will happen in the future.
We don't always necessarily have to have the answer to everything - leave a little to faith and the unexplainable.
Like Reply
prodgiz 1 month ago
Your prospective is wrong for all of the god arrguments, you are looking at things from a christan prospective. There has never been logic in christianity just mixed up ideas that in the
end just confuse people. You would need ra look at it from a more sientific stance or budist
Like Reply
ch. 1 month ago
5 .: God' s omnipotence is not defined as being able to do anything that is possible to be expressed in words (for example "to create a round square") and I would even doubt that it' s the
ability to do anything epistemologically possible ( eg. to err or to lie ). It is simply the ability to do anything he wishes to do, so that in effect nothing can stop him in his intentions. The
basis of this paradox is am incorrect concept of omnipotence. The distorted kind of "omnipotence" in this "paradox " is indeed paradoxical and impossible to instantiate and if God is to
exist, he cannot have this property.
Like Reply
Davo 1 month ago
god doesn' t exist so 1 and 5 are irrelevant
rart Reply
JD 1 month ago
In two of those, you assumed that God exists.
Not everyone believes in God, so it' s a strange place to start from. What makes you think that the reader believes in God?
Like Reply
ChickinSammich 1 month ago
I have a better solution to #7 : The unstoppable force PASSES THROUGH the immovable object.
Consider , for a moment, a waterfall. Let us assume I fire a gun at the waterfall. Consider that the waterfall does not "move " and the bullet does not "stop" at the time of impact. (This is of
course setting aside the fact that this analogy is a bit of a stretch as a bullet is not an unstoppable force and a waterfall is not an immovable object)
But that' s what would happen I believe.
# 6 is quite easy to solve as well. If “The Cretans, always liars” is indeed a lie (as the speaker was himself a Cretan" then the "true statement" - could be- "The Cretans, usually liars" (or
sometimes, or occasionally ). Just because "They always lie " is untrue does NOT imply that "They always tell the truth ", merely that "They do not always lie ".
Like Reply
Aerospider 1 month ago
Hate to break it to you, but paradoxes don 't exist by definition.
1 . This is not a paradox because it relies on the theoretical concepts of omniscience (not omnipotence) and free will. If you define them as mutually exclusive notions then they cannot
both exist, but to start with the assumption they both exist is illegitimate.
2 . This is not a paradox because , as has been said , there is no necessity for the prediction to be right. Even if the wording was done right the proposed dilemma would be logically
meaningless, but there are too many variations to go into here.

PD PD
!
3 . This isn' t a paradox because time travel is a theoretical notion. Essentially, the paradox is as real as time travel – one can imagine and define it, but not experience it.
W
O
O
N
N
4 . Don 't call something a paradox if you already have the answer that proves it's not a paradox .
y
y
bu
bu
5 . This is not a paradox because , yet again, it's a theoretcial notion that's been taken as a given. Omnipotence does not exist so neither does the paradox – what you have here is
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
actually one of the main arguments against the possibility of omnipotence.
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
6w w
w
w
. Don
. t r 't call something w a paradox if you already have the answer that proves it's not a paradox . .tr w
7 . Don 't call something a paradox if you already have the answer that proves it's not a paradox .
A paradox is where an event X is shown to be both true and not true. By definition this cannot happen, so whenever it does seem to happen we know we have made a bad assumption
and we call it a 'proof by contradiction'.
Like Reply
Jon 1 month ago
Paradoxes cant be solve because are impossible scenarios. Time travel can happen, god doesn' t exist, all forces are stoppable, all object can move and crocodiles don' t steal brothers
or make promises .
Like Reply
Tom 2 months ago
1 . God being outside of time is irrelevant. It' s still a contradiction.

The reasoning you' ve given is just as useless as saying "God gave us free will, therefore we have free will"; it doesn 't actually address the contradiction at all!
2 . You should have said "if and only if ", not just "if ". The way you have worded it, the son can still be returned to the father WITHOUT there being a contradiction.
3 . Fine , although this is just an ( unproven) theory. The alternative answer would just be "this situation would never happen, since time travel is impossible ".
4 . Fine .
5 . A better answer would just be "God cannot do logically impossible things". If you claim that God CAN do the logically impossible, then discussing any sort of logical paradox relating to
him is pointless.
6 . Very confusingly worded, but fine.
7 . Fine . (Although the fact that the situation can never happen makes the question kind of pointless.) And to anyone above who has complained about how the force would "continue to
move in another direction", you're wrong: Forces have magnitude AND direction; an ' unstoppable force ' would never have its direction changed.
Like Reply
MarkR 2 months ago
Re No.3: Your first sentence is wrong - you simply cannot travel (backwards ) in time. And there is absolutely no evidence for this . You usually hear, ''there is nothing in Einstein' s theory
of General Relativity that forbids time travel so we think it is possible '' Really ? well this isn't proof that it can happen . And there is nothing in Darwin' s theory of evolution that forbids
unicorns but I don' t see any around - just because something is not forbidden by a specific theory doesn' t mean that it can or will happen.
However, and more importantly, time is an abstract concept (used to describe and measure any change, or usually any movement) and not a real thing (i.e. not a piece of matter or
mass) so there is nothing you can do (i.e. there is force you can apply ) to manipulate time .
Also, your answer is wrong - there is absolutely no evidence for parallel universes, these are unscientific no matter what any QM equations might 'tell' you. Mathematics is a wonderful
tool to confirm that a theory is correct or that something exists, but it is never proof that something does happen or exists. Physicists should not be trying to develop theories based on
mathematical rules, they must simply use maths to describe and measure reality - but reality must take president.
rart Reply
Lithium 2 months ago
According to Catholocism, God created man to know Him, Love Him, and Serve Him in this world .
Why does a perfect being need to be loved and served?
Like Reply
rab3 2 months ago
For number 5 you missed the correct answer. The question really should be stated Is God more powerful than Himself ? Once stated that way you can see the question is illogical.
Like Reply
David 2 months ago

PD PD
!
As to number four – humans have spent centuries trying to define the indefinable and draw lines where there aren’t any. So yes there’s a human spectrum between ‘heap’ , ‘pile’ ,
W
O
O
N
N
‘scattering’ , ‘dusting’, ‘few’ and ‘ grain’. The only one that can be defined is the grain. Absolutes and definitions are a very human thing . That ’s why we have such rigid laws and outlooks
y
y
bu
bu
where there is no real justification for them. As far as nature is concerned, there is simply x number of grains and that is all that matters. There isn’t a fixed boundary between terms –
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
it’s just personal definitions. Or, as the Road Mender would say “I don’t ****ing care if it’s a heap or a pile, get ****ing digging!” The same is true of most of these – boggling over
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
omnipotence
.tr and
f t w infinity . . . things created by the human mind and the imagination can do whatever you want them to. It ’s all rather pointless in the end! .tr w
Like Reply
Bugkilla 2 months ago
Thank you for wasting my time with this poorly veiled attempt at religious profundity. The sooner the god concept is disposed of the better.
Like Reply
Richard 2 months ago
... text in the first paradox needs to be rewritten. It should read omniscient and not omnipotent, for starters.
The answer makes no sense either. If God exists outside time , how would it be possible to conceive things happening in time at all?
And the assertion that the past and the future does not affect our free will is also silly. That would mean that there is no cause and effect relationship to our actions .
Like Reply
nick 2 months ago
wow whats with all the religious assholes
Like Reply
Vlad 2 months ago
Bushi, you have to understand that this paradox is talking about physical objects . And comparing it to GOD is like the first paradox . Which is wrong. The reason is the question is wrong.
you cannot ask this kind of question because its not possible, like was stated "a square circle" .. why would u say that ? and trying to explain a square circle is pointless.
it says in the bible that there are no other gods before God. (first commandment ) so this means there isn' t an object that can move God if he was an immovable object.
in order for Bushi' s theory to work you would have to put an infinite object (GOD) into finite space ( our dimension) then attempt to measure it. if you could be such a person that can
measure God or even hold a candle to HIS majesty and LIGHT! then you would be bigger and you would be God. but your not... sorry Bushi.
Bushi your walking in darkness . your attempting to show the light, but your light is based on darkness so you yourself are a paradox. I wish you would see the light.
Like Reply
Jeff 2 months ago
The answer to the omnipotence paradox has already been answered. God is a single being in three parts. Those are The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. When god sent himself
incarnate to Earth Jesus could not, with his physical limitations, lift many things. Therefore, God created something heavier than he could lift .
Like Reply
Erik Andersson 2 months ago
>>ftA says:
August 15 , 2010 at 2 :38 pm
So you say that an the unstoppable force paradox can ’t never happen , because infinite mass doesn’ t exist. Than what about your GOD theory? An infinite mass can’ t exist, but an
omnipotent being can?
I hope someday that people will see the light and by that i don ’t mean god. ;)
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --
Couldn't haves said that any better myself! Great comment !
Like Reply
Bushi 2 months ago

PD PD
!
you say that an the unstoppable force paradox can 't never happen , because infinite mass doesn' t exist. Than what about your GOD theory? An infinite mass can' t exist, but an
W
O
O
N
N
omnipotent being can?
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
I hope someday that people will see the light and by that i don 't mean god. ;)
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Like Reply
scur 2 months ago
1 . so he knows what our choices will be. that has nothing to do with free will. who said it did?
2 . your wording sucks. he breaks no rules if he returns the child while the father is wrong.
3 . old paradox. who hasn't discussed this one?
4 . a heap is a relative term. one can easily decide when it is no longer a heap.
5 . let's just say that he can create infinite mass and lift it. that satisfies me.
6 . “ The Cretans, always liars , evil beasts, idle bellies!” what if they are always liars , but not evil beasts ? then he would be correct . it would turn the statement into a lie.
7 . the unstoppable force would simply be redirected. it would continue , unstopped, while the immovable object would remain unmoved.
all in all, i' m not too impressed with your article.
Like Reply
nick 2 months ago
# 7 the actual obvious answer there would be that the unstoppable force would simply shift direction it would continue moving as it did so it would not stop but the imovable object would still
not move .
Like Reply
Reactions
droopy8424 1 day ago
From Twitter via BackType One more retweet from nyandarthaal
http://urbantitan.com/7 -paradoxes-we- bet-you-cant-solve /
sadeethya 1 day ago
From Twitter via BackType
7 Paradoxes - http://is.gd /gsCt3
cepajulas 2 days ago
7 +paradoxes+we+bet+you+can %26%238217%3 Bt+solve http://t.co/sQ72UKH
xpixelz 2 days ago
7 +paradoxes+we+bet+you+can %26%238217%3 Bt+solve http://t.co/W6 CVnps
unloveish 2 days ago
http://urbantitan.com/7 -paradoxes-we- bet-you-cant-solve / Paradoxes...

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
lara _nur 3 days ago
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr tw .tr
a c k e r - s o ft
w
ac sof
k e r -Twitter via BackType
From
http://urbantitan.com/7 -paradoxes-we- bet-you-cant-solve / <-- -worth read
spunification 4 days ago
7 paradoxes we bet you can ’t solve http://tinyurl.com/35c 5 cnt
pandingo 6 days ago
7 +paradoxes+we+bet+you+can %26%238217%3 Bt+solve http://t.co/bNILokj
nyandarthaal 1 week ago
From Digg via BackType
http://nyandarthaal.com/
Show more reactions
Trackback URL http://urbantitan.com/7 -paradoxes
blog comments powered by DISQUS

« Previous Post
Next Post »
Advertisements
enter email address

Privacy guaranteed. We'll never share your info.

PD PD
!
W
W
Temukan kami di Facebook
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
UrbanTitan.com
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w Suka .tr w
947 orang menyukai UrbanTitan.com.
Midou Oliver Vinz Ishrat Rodkella
Abrar Tamta Eddieboy Megan Krishteen
Plugin sosial Facebook
Categories
Animals
Archaeology
Architecture
Art
Bizarre
Celebrities
Cool Stuff
Design
Entertainment
Environment
Funny
Gagdets
History
Installation
Media
Nature
News
Paleontology
Photography
Photos
Science
Sports
Technology
Travel
Uncategorized
Weird
Recent Comments
Incredible Cardboard Creativity !!!! on The Power OF Free Energy !!!

nat on 10 Most Bizarre Animals Recently Discovered
stunned on 10 Biggest Massacres in Mankind Past !!!
El on 7 paradoxes we bet you can’t solve
zhaomik on 10 Most Beautiful Women In Today’s Politics

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Recent Posts
A Porn Star Plans Lawsuit Against Charlie Sheen !!!

Nexus Two – Flagship Phone For Android 2.3 !!!
‘Saturday Night Live’ – Jon Hamm and Rihanna !!!
Incredible Cardboard Creativity !!!!
Fox Networks And Cablevision Resolve Fee Dispute !!!
Hottest From the Web !!!

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Aliens on the Old Murals
18 Futuristic Motorcycle Concepts
Shar Lamp Will Amaze Children
Cheryl Cole Photoshoot
Top 50 Photos Taken at The Perfect Time
Folow us on Facebook !!!

PD PD
!
W
W
O
O
N
N
y
y
bu
bu
to
to
k
k
lic
lic
e
e
w
w
C
C
ar
ar
w w
w
w
.tr w .tr w
Tags
2010 Alternative Animals Art artwork Australia Bizarre California celebrity China Controversial Design Discovered Earth Environment featured
film fire Food Fun future Green History Hollywood images installation London Madagascar Microsoft Movie Movies nature news people Photos pics
Science Sculptures Species strange technology Travel Water Weird World
Blogroll
I- Am-Bored.com
Leenks
rawmeat
Satellite TV Packages
Set News
Weird Worm
Animals
Archaeology
Architecture
Art
Bizarre
Celebrities
Cool Stuff
Design
Entertainment
Environment
Funny
Gagdets
History
Installation
Media
Nature
News
Paleontology
Photography
Photos
Science
Sports
Technology
Travel
Uncategorized
Weird
© Copyright Urban Titan 2010. All rights reserved.

WordPress | WordPress Themes | XHTML

7 Paradoxes We Bet You Can&#39;t Solve

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7 Paradoxes We Bet You Can&#39;t Solve

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7 paradoxes we bet you can't solve Page 1

enter search terms ...

The Quran and Universe

Chris | Aug 13, 2010 | View Comments

God -total Union with God

Image source - Wikipedia

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Image source - Wikipedia

Image source - zastavki .com

4. Paradox of the heap

Image source - Wikipedia

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Image source - Wikipedia

Image source - Wikipedia

7. Unstoppable force paradox

Image source - motivatedphotos.com

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Popular Stuff From All Over the Internet !!!!

I See Dead Those Photos Pointless 15 Awesome

Wrath of God 30000 Lego Male Optical The 10 Scary

27 Vintage Ads 25 Coolest Big Cock ...xHo Toilets

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Did the Universe Come From - God?

Filed Under: Bizarre

Subscribe via RSS Feed

subscribe via email submit

About the Author

Add New Comment

Optional: Login below.

Type your comment here.

Sort by Popular now Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS

justanotherday2 2 days ago

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Martin 5 days ago

slick vic 5 days ago

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Martin 6 days ago

BWM 6 days ago

Glass Paint 6 days ago

Wally Kovacs 1 week ago

kyle 1 week ago

Saying God is outside of time doesn' t solve that paradox at all

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

frosty2 1 week ago

Raving Lunatic 1 week ago

I agree, these are all pretty lame .

Big Al 1 week ago

Wally Kovacs 1 week ago

2 - This is a logic puzzle , plain and simple

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

Arthur 1 week ago

Roland 1 week ago

3 . Assuming time even exists is the fallacy.

4 . Duh! A heap requires a depth greater than 1 grain.

6 . Figured that out in grade school. Really not worthy.

Chileman2020 1 week ago

coolbeans 2 weeks ago

this is a stupid compilation of "paradoxes "

http://urbantitan.com/7-paradoxes-we-bet-you-cant-solve/ 01/11/2010 17:12:47

chatkiller 2 weeks ago

alex 2 weeks ago

1 . Displayed a complete inability to recognize a paradox , scoring 2 out of 7 .

Doopy 2 weeks ago

7 Paradoxes We Bet You Can't Solve

7 Paradoxes We Bet You Can't Solve