7 Paradoxes I bet you can't solve..

1. Free Will

3. Grandfather paradox

4. Paradox of the heap

5. Omnipotence paradox

6. Epimenides paradox

7. Unstoppable force paradox

Just so everybody know theirs an answer for each of these.

1) infinite alternate universes with unending branching forks in destiny. 
 
2)the father will shoot the crocodile 
 
3)alternate realities 
 
4)of course not, logic 
 
5)if he is omni everything, it stands to reason that he is the rock as well and you cant lift yourself up. try it. 
 
6)maybe he is just a misanthrope. Besides, lying about lying does not make it a truth. It's still a lie. 
 
7)Superman answered this, they both surrender.

 1- No idea
2- The crocodile calls him an idiot and eats his kid
3- The man who went back in time causes a diverging flow in time. This man lives, but from that point on, he does not live.
4- No. Of course not.
5- Exactly. So he's not omnipotent. But then, if you were a smartass to God, he would probably just smite you on the spot.
6- Or he could just be a hypocrite.
7- They freeze.

"1. Free Will

 
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will?"

 
  
We don't.
Thats the problem from looking at anything from the future's perspective, what will happen will happen. Even if you are capable of knowing the future, knowing it will be factored in.  
 

2.  Crocodile Dilemma  

 
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?

"3. Grandfather paradox

"4. Paradox of the heap

"5. Omnipotence paradox

"6. Epimenides paradox

 "7. Unstoppable force paradox 

  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. "

 
 
1. God just allows us to do what we wanna do, whether right or wrong. So He indeed has given us freewil
 
2. Since the father made the right guess, then the son will not be eaten and will be returned to him.
 
3. Wrong. It's either the man who traveled through time will not be affected or the man will vanish for doing it.
 
4. no. 
 
5. Actually, there's really no such thing as omnipotent, unless you have a different definition of omnipotent. If we stick to the real definition of omnipotent, then yes he can do anything he can't do and at the same time he can do everything too.
 
6. I don't think so. He didn't say all Cretans. and even if he did say, it was a general statement, and general statements also lead to false statements.
 

7. You mean immovable. They're just synonymous to each other. But I'd prefer being called immovable because the unstoppable can still be pushed or moved forward.",)

Someone was paying attention in Philsophy =]

@mavfan626
 
IDK if your right, but if i ever turn into a zombie guess whose gets eaten first ? lol

"1. Free Will

 
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will? 
  
The flaw is assuming something about the vague infinite concept of "God." From this standpoint any number of paradoxes can arise, but only because an assumption was made first. If this assumption of omnipotence is removed, then all things have free will. If something is in complete control, that is not "free will."

2.  Crocodile Dilemma  

 
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?  
 
The only reason the father would say that, psychologically, would be to invoke conflicting paradoxical thoughts in his son, thus confusing him. The father may not care what his son said or about his own statement, and simply use this as a distraction to get his son back. He may use this to stump his son momentarily, then kill him for stealing in the first place, and get his other son back. The paradox lies only in his words, not necessarily in his actions, thus the father still has many options to choose from to attain his goal. Many things can "happen" from either side. The father can say his words...... then a tree can fall down in a forest somewhere where no one can hear it (or anything that can be thought of in general can "happen").......... But what happens in regard to the issue at hand is not absolutely contingent on the contradictory potential created by this psychologically/philosophically experimenting crocodile.  
 

3. Grandfather paradox

 

 
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.  
 
This spawns many debates about time travel paradoxes...... Some theories would say that him simply going back in time automaically makes a parallel timeline seperate from the one he arrived from, thus affecting an entirely different branch of the continuum, and not contradicting the man's existence........ 
 
Or....... 
 
The grandfather could have been a sperm donor, and the grandmother got an artificial insemination, allowing the man's parent to be born, thus not disrupting anything because of the man's false assumption that his grandparen's met in the first place...... 
 
There are also theories that going back in time wouldn't change anything at all, because if you were truly back in time, that would be what already happened, thus unable to be affected..... Meaning this action could simply have minimal effects on what was already going to happen, or possibly set off a chain of events still causing him to be born, that couldn't have been prevented no matter how hard ayone tried in the first place, because he was "destined" to go back and set off this chain of events...... 
 
There are a few more, but those are the time travel theories pertinent to the question asked.......
 

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? 
   
Heap is a vague term to signify a connotatively perceived amount. In language it is used almost as a definition, but there is no set mathematical constant for it to follow, thus allowing such logical playfulness at he use of the word. 
 
Whether or not it is a heap is completely subjective, as heap is a highly subjective term and not a "technical" term when describing amount. Using a vague definition of a word in a structured example is the cause of a large amount (if not most of) the paradoxical expressions in language.  
 
Prime example is the use of the word "God." it is typically seen as a vague representation of infinity in its intensive situation. But improper use allows it to appear to bend the rules of logic, when in fact, it was just simply poorly defined criteria in the first place.
 

5. Omnipotence paradox

 

 
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.  
 
Again this is an assumption about "God" that comes even before the question. The question is interpreted as simplistically "Can a being capable of anything, do something that it cannot do?" And the variable are simply inserted by use of language to dillute the principle behind the question. This formula is mildly altered in many statements, this one in particular is using the principle of lifting. It has infinite strength....... can it make something that exceeds infinity in it's weight. This formula can be applied to the paradoxes of love that arise. "Can an all loving being allow conditions of such unbearable pain, upon the things it claims to love." And so on and so forth, each example simply interchanging a contradictory perceived constant/principle. These all fail in the fact that they assume this "being" loves/(insert random principle) them in the first place with no proof. Or vague ambiguous inteerpretations of fleeting moments ignoring all other events to the contrary. So jumping headfirst into a conclusion, then continuously struggling with the contradiction, rather than simply observing and rationalizing their actions first so that they understand the situation fully is where the persons decisions were wrong. Why would something require them to not be questioned about obviously questionable behavior/though patterns? If i told you to give me money but never ever ask me why or what it's for, wouldn't that raise suspicions? But if i tell you to follow this set of thinking without question regardless of how the situation appears to go against it.... There is no fault in that?..... This makes no sense.......
 
Back to the principle at hand. 

"Can a being capable of anything, create a situation it cannot handle" Can an infinite being do something that contradicts it's intrinsic nature? The answer to this question has to match it's arena. 
 
Can a human being do what a human being can't do? Can a person do something they cannot do? No. If a human does something, then that would be included in what is classified as human capability, regardless of belief around it.
 
Can something that has not limits have limits? Limits on what? Vague statemnts like this leave room for error, because they can bve easly flipped by interpretation. Only in a clear set of criteria can an evauatio be made. Only as much information as has been given, is what can be concluded. If ther were things learned before hand, that can be extended upon by this new knowledge, thus producing more understanding, it was still only because of the criteria in which it was understood in the first place. Not because of vague references to undefined concepts. 
 
If the concepts are well defined and understandable, anybody can recognize and solve the problems in their sleep. But by convoluting and confusing with ambiguous connotative subjectivity, psychology and philosophy can be played with... Like a magic trick....... but on your mind...... 
 
To answer the principle behind the question, No. 
 
But to answer the language's version of the expression of the principle behind it..... I will answer it later, in the physics form of it's manifestation........ So that it can possibly be better understood.....
 
 

 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. 
   
Truth is truth. Because the man said something that appears contradictory, doesn't mean it will infinitey digress. The principles stated (if taken seriously) would do that. But taking into account "reality" can an entire group on people in a region be calssified in such a way as he has done? Can an entire society/nation be "liars?" And what is a liar? A person who constantly lies all of the time,or a person whom every statement they utter is untruthful. 
 
If "liar" is interpreted as someone incapable of telling the truth, then the principles in the statement would contradict. But if it is translated as just one who likes to tell untruths, then is there no space for them to possibly tell the truth every now and then? Can he be a liar and tell the truth? Or can a liar never, ever, ever make a true statement?
 
And if a person tells you something they know to be untrue is that lying? What if they tell you something they believe to be true, but it turns out to be false? What if they tell you something they believe to be a lie, but it is really truth? Is the definition in the intention or in the end result? 
 
The term "liar" having a floppy foundation built on connotation is one subjective variable. The fact that Epimenides generalized an entire group is another. Throw a bunch of vague expressions together, simiulate the appearance of a criteria around them, and presto..... interpretive contradiction...... 
 
If a person acts in a play, are they "lying?" Or does society connotatively make exceptions for them?....... What about slight "bending" of truth? Is any deception lying?.. Are assive and active deception to be treated as the same thing?..... How would you judge passive deception... Without first looking at your own way of interpreting?........
 
Again this is a fallacy of connotation and interpretation... The paradox truly doesn't exist... It just appears to.... Because one wants to see it........ If you see past it to it's principles... You will see truth.....

7. Unstoppable force paradox

 

  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. "

"@mavfan626 said:

"1. Free Will

 
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will?"

 
  
We don't.
Thats the problem from looking at anything from the future's perspective, what will happen will happen. Even if you are capable of knowing the future, knowing it will be factored in.  
  
Another part of the set of theories surrounding time travel. Nice.

 
 

"3. Grandfather paradox

 

 
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. "
 
 
I could think of multiple things that may happen. Although likely another universe would simply be spawned or your stuck with an endless loop of killing yourself preventng any future.  
But the thing, the Universe always finds a way to work, so if it's possible to time travel then your likely going to have a multiverse effect. 
 
Endless loop. That one too. Nice

 
 

"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. " 
 
He forgot to add to the end of his statement, "all except me". 
 
Nice.
 

 "7. Unstoppable force paradox 

  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. "

 
 
The Unstoppable force goes in the other direction.

 See solved!
 
 
 
 NICE.
 

 

"

1. He knows what choice you are going to make, that doesn't mean he made the choice for you.
 
2. There is no right answer to this.
 
3. I'm guessing that a typo happened. Besides the obvious "alternate reality" theory is thrown out there, I suggest that he  is stopping his father's father from being his mothers mother or his mother's father from meeting his father's mother. Problem solved.
 
4. A heap would have to be at least more than one grain of sand by definition.
 
5. Their is no correct answer to a statement like this.
 
6. Just because a statement "The Cretans always lie" is in fact a lie, doesn't mean that the truth is the complete opposite that, "Cretans always tell the truth."
 
7.  There is no right answer. This wasn't really a question  either.

I believe for #7, Batman hangs the Joker upside down from a building and they talk about ethics. At lest I think so, I saw it in a movie somewhere. I can't remember for the life of me which movie it was, though. Oh, wait! It was Adventures in Babysitting!

Few of these caught my eye.
1. Knowing everything doesn't mean that you are controlling it; having the power to controll ever action doesn't mean you have to. Even if I have seen the future and have the power to change it I can still sit back and do nothing.
3. The jury is out. We're not even 100% sure time travel is possible.
4. Heap is a subjective term applied to a random large amount of something, so no.
7. The unstoppable force is the unmovable object. You never said it was stationary.

" @mavfan626 said:

"1. Free Will

 
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will? 
  
The flaw is assuming something about the vague infinite concept of "God." From this standpoint any number of paradoxes can arise, but only because an assumption was made first. If this assumption of omnipotence is removed, then all things have free will. If something is in complete control, that is not "free will."

2.  Crocodile Dilemma  

 
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?  
 
The only reason the father would say that, psychologically, would be to invoke conflicting paradoxical thoughts in his son, thus confusing him. The father may not care what his son said or about his own statement, and simply use this as a distraction to get his son back. He may use this to stump his son momentarily, then kill him for stealing in the first place, and get his other son back. The paradox lies only in his words, not necessarily in his actions, thus the father still has many options to choose from to attain his goal. Many things can "happen" from either side. The father can say his words...... then a tree can fall down in a forest somewhere where no one can hear it (or anything that can be thought of in general can "happen").......... But what happens in regard to the issue at hand is not absolutely contingent on the contradictory potential created by this psychologically/philosophically experimenting crocodile.  
 

3. Grandfather paradox

 

 
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.  
 
This spawns many debates about time travel paradoxes...... Some theories would say that him simply going back in time automaically makes a parallel timeline seperate from the one he arrived from, thus affecting an entirely different branch of the continuum, and not contradicting the man's existence........ 
 
Or....... 
 
The grandfather could have been a sperm donor, and the grandmother got an artificial insemination, allowing the man's parent to be born, thus not disrupting anything because of the man's false assumption that his grandparen's met in the first place...... 
 
There are also theories that going back in time wouldn't change anything at all, because if you were truly back in time, that would be what already happened, thus unable to be affected..... Meaning this action could simply have minimal effects on what was already going to happen, or possibly set off a chain of events still causing him to be born, that couldn't have been prevented no matter how hard ayone tried in the first place, because he was "destined" to go back and set off this chain of events...... 
 
There are a few more, but those are the time travel theories pertinent to the question asked.......
 

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? 
   
Heap is a vague term to signify a connotatively perceived amount. In language it is used almost as a definition, but there is no set mathematical constant for it to follow, thus allowing such logical playfulness at he use of the word. 
 
Whether or not it is a heap is completely subjective, as heap is a highly subjective term and not a "technical" term when describing amount. Using a vague definition of a word in a structured example is the cause of a large amount (if not most of) the paradoxical expressions in language.  
 
Prime example is the use of the word "God." it is typically seen as a vague representation of infinity in its intensive situation. But improper use allows it to appear to bend the rules of logic, when in fact, it was just simply poorly defined criteria in the first place.
 

5. Omnipotence paradox

 

 
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.  
 
Again this is an assumption about "God" that comes even before the question. The question is interpreted as simplistically "Can a being capable of anything, do something that it cannot do?" And the variable are simply inserted by use of language to dillute the principle behind the question. This formula is mildly altered in many statements, this one in particular is using the principle of lifting. It has infinite strength....... can it make something that exceeds infinity in it's weight. This formula can be applied to the paradoxes of love that arise. "Can an all loving being allow conditions of such unbearable pain, upon the things it claims to love." And so on and so forth, each example simply interchanging a contradictory perceived constant/principle. These all fail in the fact that they assume this "being" loves/(insert random principle) them in the first place with no proof. Or vague ambiguous inteerpretations of fleeting moments ignoring all other events to the contrary. So jumping headfirst into a conclusion, then continuously struggling with the contradiction, rather than simply observing and rationalizing their actions first so that they understand the situation fully is where the persons decisions were wrong. Why would something require them to not be questioned about obviously questionable behavior/though patterns? If i told you to give me money but never ever ask me why or what it's for, wouldn't that raise suspicions? But if i tell you to follow this set of thinking without question regardless of how the situation appears to go against it.... There is no fault in that?..... This makes no sense.......
 
Back to the principle at hand. 

"Can a being capable of anything, create a situation it cannot handle" Can an infinite being do something that contradicts it's intrinsic nature? The answer to this question has to match it's arena. 
 
Can a human being do what a human being can't do? Can a person do something they cannot do? No. If a human does something, then that would be included in what is classified as human capability, regardless of belief around it.
 
Can something that has not limits have limits? Limits on what? Vague statemnts like this leave room for error, because they can bve easly flipped by interpretation. Only in a clear set of criteria can an evauatio be made. Only as much information as has been given, is what can be concluded. If ther were things learned before hand, that can be extended upon by this new knowledge, thus producing more understanding, it was still only because of the criteria in which it was understood in the first place. Not because of vague references to undefined concepts. 
 
If the concepts are well defined and understandable, anybody can recognize and solve the problems in their sleep. But by convoluting and confusing with ambiguous connotative subjectivity, psychology and philosophy can be played with... Like a magic trick....... but on your mind...... 
 
To answer the principle behind the question, No. 
 
But to answer the language's version of the expression of the principle behind it..... I will answer it later, in the physics form of it's manifestation........ So that it can possibly be better understood.....
 
 

 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. 
   
Truth is truth. Because the man said something that appears contradictory, doesn't mean it will infinitey digress. The principles stated (if taken seriously) would do that. But taking into account "reality" can an entire group on people in a region be calssified in such a way as he has done? Can an entire society/nation be "liars?" And what is a liar? A person who constantly lies all of the time,or a person whom every statement they utter is untruthful. 
 
If "liar" is interpreted as someone incapable of telling the truth, then the principles in the statement would contradict. But if it is translated as just one who likes to tell untruths, then is there no space for them to possibly tell the truth every now and then? Can he be a liar and tell the truth? Or can a liar never, ever, ever make a true statement?
 
And if a person tells you something they know to be untrue is that lying? What if they tell you something they believe to be true, but it turns out to be false? What if they tell you something they believe to be a lie, but it is really truth? Is the definition in the intention or in the end result? 
 
The term "liar" having a floppy foundation built on connotation is one subjective variable. The fact that Epimenides generalized an entire group is another. Throw a bunch of vague expressions together, simiulate the appearance of a criteria around them, and presto..... interpretive contradiction...... 
 
If a person acts in a play, are they "lying?" Or does society connotatively make exceptions for them?....... What about slight "bending" of truth? Is any deception lying?.. Are assive and active deception to be treated as the same thing?..... How would you judge passive deception... Without first looking at your own way of interpreting?........
 
Again this is a fallacy of connotation and interpretation... The paradox truly doesn't exist... It just appears to.... Because one wants to see it........ If you see past it to it's principles... You will see truth.....

7. Unstoppable force paradox

 

  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. "

This is the physics representation of contradicting mathematical principles i referenced earlier...... 
 
My understanding comes soley from me... And i simply solve this paradox by contemplating.... 
 
That they are the same thing......... 
 
Motion is relative.... Another thing has to be moving in relation to something else in order for it to be noticed........ 
 
I see this paradox, as a manifestation..... Of inertia itself....... 
 
Inertia is a "force" which embodies both sides of this question......... 
 
Things that are in motion stay in motion..... unless disrupted........ Things that are at rest, stay at rest........ unless disrupted....... 
 
How can this intangible principle be in two places at once?........... Or...... is it just that inertia is always inertia...An eternal principle....... And things take on it's attributes in different situations.... While this universally mathematical principle.... Always stays the same........  ? 
 
How this relates to the previous paradox of a being, making something that it cannot stop......... Yet still having all control...... The only thing i can think of that would satisfy those criteria would be.... One's own descision....... 
 
I can "stop" myself.... but do i still have control?.. (did i even have control in the first place?.. Is my psyche fractured/do i have a split personality? other insignificant factors can infinity regress but it all comes from the criteria established, and how it is interpreted....)........ this all comes from connotation, of what is considered "me"...... 
 
It all comes from connotation of what is consirdered "God"....... 
 
It comes from connotation of what is considered "unstoppable"........ Couldn't the "immovableness" of the object be connotatively seen as "unstoppable?"...... And the unyielding "unstoppableness" of the force can principly be seen as "immovable".......... Thus both are united as one being, simply perceived as different............. 
 
Perception is key to any illusion........... But the mind can see past them, if trained to stay awake...... And rationalize, rather than be swayyed with vague connotations.......... 
 
I came up with this theory a while ago...... Haven't heard anything lik it, and it satisfies me....... It's all perception, how i see it......
"

DOES NOT COMPUTE
   

1. God is outside of any dimension, and by dimensions I refer to aspects of existence such as probability, magnitude, longitude, time and space, therefore nothing he knows affects us directly in a way. Him knowing what we are going to do is past, and past does not affect your free will...except if you're batman...
 
2. I can't see a way out of this one. The crocodile violates a fact in any situation. If he keeps the child, he violates his own rule, if he gives him, he violates the prediction.
 
3.  Not sure about this one, but I knew a theorem from college. Every choice we make is transmuted into a parallel universe...therefore this action takes place on multiple universes and there is an infinite number of them, so there is an infinite number of identical universes. I think the distance between 2 parallel ones (not identical) is 10 at the power of 10 at the power of 28 light years. 
 
4. Say we fix a boundary with a margin of error, since it would not be fair for a heap to differ because of 2 to a number smaller than 100 grains. (also, the stupid way would be...the other 999, 999 are just 1 meter away now...there's your heap)
 
5. The arrangement "can not" does not make sense for omnipotence therefore he can create such a thing but he could also lift it, since it is above mere logic to how he attains such a thing, I'll leave this be completed...
 
6. If there is anyone besides that person that is not a liar, then his statement is invalid. However, referring to himself as a liar does not prove that he lied with the statement, anyways in the former case, the statement is fake, even if he described himself as a liar.
 
7.  There is no such thing as an unmovable object if there exists an unstoppable force, and there is not unstoppable force if there exists an unmovable object. Therefore, the 2 cannot coexist.
 
If you have a better answer or corrections made to mine, please feel free to reply. It's a really interesting thread.
 
Also, reflect on this:
 
If this statement is true, then the whole internet will shut down and monkey aliens will come raping our little girls in 1 hour. <---One of my favorite when I was younger.

 
 
 
DEBUNKED
 
 
 
 
@Hellos said:

" @mavfan626 said:

"1. Free Will

 
If God is omnipotent and knows what we will do before he created us, how can we have free will?"

 
  
We don't.
Thats the problem from looking at anything from the future's perspective, what will happen will happen. Even if you are capable of knowing the future, knowing it will be factored in.  
 

2.  Crocodile Dilemma  

 
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?

 

The father doesn't get his child back. 
 
 
 

"3. Grandfather paradox

 

 
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. "
 
 
I could think of multiple things that may happen. Although likely another universe would simply be spawned or your stuck with an endless loop of killing yourself preventng any future.  
But the thing, the Universe always finds a way to work, so if it's possible to time travel then your likely going to have a multiverse effect.

 
 

"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? "
 
I'll say yes.   
 

"5. Omnipotence paradox

 

 
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. "
   
This rides off a concept of God actually having the ability to lift anything. An interesting Paradox that could involve with God willing something he cannot lift only to make it liftable any time he chooses. 
 

"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. " 
 
He forgot to add to the end of his statement, "all except me".
 

 "7. Unstoppable force paradox 

  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. "

 
 
The Unstoppable force goes in the other direction.

 See solved!
 
 
 
 
 

 

"

lol....Nice thread...thanks

the grandfather is killed, but the grandson ends up sleeping with his future grandmother, becoming his own grandfather. thus Fry is born.

1. god could block his own memories
2. he guessed wrong
3. if time happens all at once then it creates  a loop and the person who traveled will still be alive, if time does not happen all at once then the person will not exist
4. god can turn his powers off an on
5. if their is only one then it is not a heap
6. he is still lying..a lie is a lie, even if you are lying about telling the truth
7. the unstoppable object will not be stopped and the unmovable object will not move..the unstoppable object will just change direction upon impact

" the grandfather is killed, but the grandson ends up sleeping with his future grandmother, becoming his own grandfather. thus Fry is born. "

"the grandfather is killed, but the grandson ends up sleeping with his future grandmother, becoming his own grandfather. thus Fry is born. "

Number five is simple.

Joe: Hey God, since you're omnipotent, can you create a block so heavy even YOU can't lift it?

God: Sure, here's one right now!

Joe: Aha! Since you can't lift it, you're not omnipotent!

God: What are you talking about? I'm lifting it right now!

Joe: But I thought it was so heavy that you can't lift it!

God: Joe, I'm omnipotent! I can do whatever I want!

Even the illogical.

I don't think the first one is even really a paradox, and one song says that God can do anything but fail, so no he cannot make something he cannot lift but that's silly and doesn't make him not omnipotent.

4-6 are not paradoxes

1 is arguably not a paradox, depending on your definition of "free will"

2 is arguably not a paradox, but it could be if worded better

What happens if an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

It depends on the how proportionally infinite the force and stability of the object are, and on what order you take the limit where these things go to infinity. If people would like, I could do the mathematical derivation of this.

It's simple, the answer is 42....

Ya can't solve a all the paradox. Thats the point. No matter how many answers you bring up there is always a problem that occurs.

But lets give this one a shot: The unstoppable force and the immovable object are basically the exact same thing.

Three things might happen: The unstoppable force will change direction when it hits the immovable object

2. when both meet they will phase through each other like nothing ever happened

3. they are both the same thing the unstoppable force is the immovable object.

The second and the last is all I can read through without getting baffled

@jezer: 4-6 are widely referred to as paradoxes. Why do you say they are not?

I have answers but I'll post them tomorrow

Do paradoxes even need to be solved? Are they like unanswered questions or could they offer valuable insight into a reality we've never considered? I could think of "answers" or explanations to most of these, but I'm too lazy right now.

I can answer 7, they pass through each other.