>The premise is impossible, surely.The very existence of an 'irresistable' makes it impossible for any object to reist it, and hence be immovable; and vice versa.Either:a) an irresistable force meets a moveable object and moves it.b) a strong but not irresistable force meets a moveable object and moves it.c) A resistable force is meets an immovable object.d) A resistable force meets any object (not necessarily immovable) that is able to resist it and nothing moves.In other words, something that is truly irresistable cannot coexist with something that is truly immovable; where something is immovable there can be no irresistable force and where a force is irresistable there is nothing immovable.You could suppose a situation where neither would win out and you would get some sort of massive transformation of energy or space-time mutation of some sort, but even that would mean that the object wasn't able to truly resist the force and the force was unable to truly manipulate the object and that neither was an absolute.So, to answer the question: nothing, because it cannot possibly happen in reality.It's similar, in a way, to one of the arguments against the existence of a Judeo-Christian 'all powerful and ever living' deity. If it was omnipotent it would be able to destroy itself, but then it wouldn't be eternal; if it was eternal it wouldn't be able to destroy itself and then wouldn't be omnipotent. Two absolutes like that cannot coexist – one has to win out and, because we are dealing with absolutes all a meeting between an 'irresistable force' or an 'immovable object' would prove is that one wasn't irresistable or the other wasn't immovable, or both.
>I agree in part with Ross. Perhaps the irresistable force would sweep over and around the object without moving it or impacting it, just as the immovable object would not impact the irresistable force, neither slowing it or stopping it. In response to the Judeo Christian argument, the 'all powerful and ever living' God could well exist. The whole idea is that God is not of this earth, and as a result no earthly intelligence or science can be applied. Therefore what is an absolute impossability in the scientific world is a distinc possibility if you have faith.
>I agree completely with Ross, and I'm afraid not at all with Tom. Sorry.This question is called an 'Omnipotence Paradox' and is intended more as an exercise in logic that an answerable question. Why? Because as Ross said two absolutes opposing each other could not happen. Something can be immovable relative to something else but not in absolute terms. And likewise something can only be irrestible to certain other things.The idea that the force would just warp around the object means that the force would not be resisting the immovable object.The paradox is usually used with reference to theology as you have both pointed out. Yet the argument that no logic, reason, science or "earthly intelligence" applies to God is the same as accepting that God does not exist as any real thing/being.If I said there was an all powerful pixie at the bottom of my garden we would probably have a conversation along these lines:T: There is nothing visibleR: It's invisibleT: There is nothing to touchR: You can pass through itT: The laws of science contradict youR: The pixie is so powerful that no laws of science apply.T: Ring ring, "yes can you put me through to the menatal asylum please?"I'm not saying that God cannot exist. I'm simply saying that we cannot argue for God by saying that every piece of science, maths, logic etc is irrelevant. By that logic your belief in God is irrelevant. After all what are we but "earthly intelligence"?
>Ok, fair point about the force and the object. However please dont ever try to tell me that my belief in God is irrelevant or we will have a serious fall out
Battison's Blog 
>The premise is impossible, surely.The very existence of an 'irresistable' makes it impossible for any object to reist it, and hence be immovable; and vice versa.Either:a) an irresistable force meets a moveable object and moves it.b) a strong but not irresistable force meets a moveable object and moves it.c) A resistable force is meets an immovable object.d) A resistable force meets any object (not necessarily immovable) that is able to resist it and nothing moves.In other words, something that is truly irresistable cannot coexist with something that is truly immovable; where something is immovable there can be no irresistable force and where a force is irresistable there is nothing immovable.You could suppose a situation where neither would win out and you would get some sort of massive transformation of energy or space-time mutation of some sort, but even that would mean that the object wasn't able to truly resist the force and the force was unable to truly manipulate the object and that neither was an absolute.So, to answer the question: nothing, because it cannot possibly happen in reality.It's similar, in a way, to one of the arguments against the existence of a Judeo-Christian 'all powerful and ever living' deity. If it was omnipotent it would be able to destroy itself, but then it wouldn't be eternal; if it was eternal it wouldn't be able to destroy itself and then wouldn't be omnipotent. Two absolutes like that cannot coexist – one has to win out and, because we are dealing with absolutes all a meeting between an 'irresistable force' or an 'immovable object' would prove is that one wasn't irresistable or the other wasn't immovable, or both.
>I agree in part with Ross. Perhaps the irresistable force would sweep over and around the object without moving it or impacting it, just as the immovable object would not impact the irresistable force, neither slowing it or stopping it. In response to the Judeo Christian argument, the 'all powerful and ever living' God could well exist. The whole idea is that God is not of this earth, and as a result no earthly intelligence or science can be applied. Therefore what is an absolute impossability in the scientific world is a distinc possibility if you have faith.
>I agree completely with Ross, and I'm afraid not at all with Tom. Sorry.This question is called an 'Omnipotence Paradox' and is intended more as an exercise in logic that an answerable question. Why? Because as Ross said two absolutes opposing each other could not happen. Something can be immovable relative to something else but not in absolute terms. And likewise something can only be irrestible to certain other things.The idea that the force would just warp around the object means that the force would not be resisting the immovable object.The paradox is usually used with reference to theology as you have both pointed out. Yet the argument that no logic, reason, science or "earthly intelligence" applies to God is the same as accepting that God does not exist as any real thing/being.If I said there was an all powerful pixie at the bottom of my garden we would probably have a conversation along these lines:T: There is nothing visibleR: It's invisibleT: There is nothing to touchR: You can pass through itT: The laws of science contradict youR: The pixie is so powerful that no laws of science apply.T: Ring ring, "yes can you put me through to the menatal asylum please?"I'm not saying that God cannot exist. I'm simply saying that we cannot argue for God by saying that every piece of science, maths, logic etc is irrelevant. By that logic your belief in God is irrelevant. After all what are we but "earthly intelligence"?
>Ok, fair point about the force and the object. However please dont ever try to tell me that my belief in God is irrelevant or we will have a serious fall out
>Like the highlander said, "there can be only one".