The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited as an idea is proven to be a false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 58758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea

weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist.

better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force.


Commentary on the Resolution: I am going to interpret Pro's argument as being that properties that are normally considered quantitative cannot in principle be infinite. For example, a force is usually of a particular magnitude - an unstoppable force would be of infinite magnitude. Although there are no known forces of infinite magnitude in the universe, I do not see why such a force could not exist.

Commentary on the Burden of Proof: It is inherently difficult to prove that a statement is merely possibly true, even if the possibility seems rather obvious. For example, it is definitely possible for goldfish to be green, but it is difficult to prove why. I will argue that something should be assumed to be possible if it is readily imaginable. Only if some contradiction or other impossible consequence results should this assumption be reversed. I consider it easy to imagine an object that cannot be moved regardless of how much force is applied to it, so the burden of proof must lie on Pro to should why this is not a possible situation.

Rebuttal to the "Unlimited Paradox": Pro argues that an immovable object cannot exist, because if it were to encounter an unstoppable force, a contradiction would result. All this proves is that an unstoppable force cannot encounter an immovable object. There is no reason why an immovable object cannot exist on its own. It would have a property (resistance to motion) in an unlimited quantity, which negates the resolution. Pro assumes that if an unlimited quality exists, an opposing unlimited quality must exist also. I see no good reason to assume that - indeed, if an immovable object were to exist, it would strongly suggest that unstoppable forces do not exist. However, it is even possible for immovable objects and unstoppable forces to exist simultaneously as long as there is some factor which prevents them from coming into contact. Either way, this "paradox" is not paradoxical at all.

Conclusion: Although the consequences may be difficult to imagine, there is no good reason to believe that unlimited properties are not conceptually possible. Pro's argument does not show anything to this effect. It can only prove the much weaker claim that objects with opposing unlimited qualities cannot interact with each other in certain ways - that does not mean that they cannot exist.
Debate Round No. 1


well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates.

i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate.

it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument.


Pro did not actually contradict anything I said in Round 1, so I extent my arguments. In fact, she seems to concede that my arguments are correct. Any assertions that Pro makes about the impossiblity of specific qualities existing to an unlimited extent are irrelevant to the debate, which is about unlimited qualities in general.
Debate Round No. 2


yeah i have nothing more to say.

except, as i would argue in the God debate, if God wanted to go past logic, then he could, he could make a circle be a square. or moon could mean fish. in the world we live in, we can't really concern ourselves with that. i would apply this argument to con's arguments and say nonsensical stuff in a truly unlimited world should be permissble, albeit unheard of. con hasn't made this point.


Pro agrees with my arguments, so there is really nothing for me to write in this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes to Con as well as Pro having terrible grammar.