We’re all familiar with the old question “What would happen if an irresistible force met an immoveable object?”
Best answer I’ve seen came from author Isaac Asimov who said -
“The question is a ‘nonsense question’ and therefore requires no answer because a universe that contains an irresistable force cannot therefore simultaneously contain an immoveable object, and vice-versa.”
Do the philosophers of this forum go along with that?
based on reason alone, yes, otherwise, no. So forgive me for saying no.
I go along with that…
and similar reasoning can be used to reduce a lot of religious rhetoric to nonesense as well.
nonsense for me equals–non cents, since there is no agreement and and it can’t be USED.
its just as valid as artwork being destroyed before being seen by or sold to the public.
The artwork did exist at one time. But tell someone how great the artwork was based on the fact that it no longer exists and they’ll tell you that’s nonsense. The greatness still exists, however subjective.
I’ve decided tonight, I’m an irrationalist. Is there such a thing? Who cares. I’m it.
you cant reduce things to non-sense. Non sense is ever expanding.
No one reduced this to nonsense. It was nonsense from the start.
and we added to it. See?
I agree. 
Connect