Imagine there is a guy called Alex, and a friend of his.
His friend is wearing an outfit.
Alex thinks his friends' outfit is ugly.
His friend decides to ask Alex's opinion on his outfit.
Alex responds;
"I am going to lie. Your outfit is ugly."
Did Alex lie?
On a relevant note too. Take a look at the title of the post again. Have I lied?
Here is the thinking process:
Apparently, a claim is made. Something is...Immovable.
Okay. Let's ask about it. What makes it immovable?
The answer is either one of two, all other answers converge to one of these two really; A, an undeniable fact. B, an assumed claim made from what is known of the object, such as that it is known to have never been moved, therefore, it is highly doubted it can be moved—but not exactly known or guaranteed.
And that is really all the thinking process you need.
If it is A. An undeniable fact. Well, end of conversation. Apparently, it is an undeniable fact, it argues for itself. An immovable object, by virtue of itself, denies the existence of an unstoppable force. Because the very fact it is immovable, means everything else has at least one thing they cannot move. Because of that conclusion, an unstoppable force cannot exist by virtue of an immovable object.
If it is B. An assumed claim made from past knowledge alone, this is also an end to the conversation. The only thing to do here is to perhaps wait around and see if "Immovable object" really is immovable when it does meet the proclaimed "Unstoppable". If it does get moved, it doesn't mean the "Unstoppable" moved an immovable, it just means that the so called immovable, never was immovable after all.
Aaand, the same thing can be done for unstoppable; If A then by virtue of itself, it denies the existence of an immovable object/force. If B, it clashes with "immovable object" and perhaps loses—proving that it never was unstoppable after all.
Check this out:
Imagine there is a person. This person has a way of time travelling into the future. And so, they do it one day. They travel directly to a point in time, where they are not alive, deceased. They walk up to the grave where their body supposedly is buried and find a skull sitting on their tombstone. Then, the person takes that skull on their tombstone, and immediately leaves the future and returns to their present.
When they return to the present, they find the skull has de-aged and is a little more fresh than it was before.
Then, this person lives the rest of their life without time travelling into that future again. And one day, they die by old age and get buried they too. And, just like that future they had seen, their grave gets decorated with the skull they had carried from the future.
And, as logic is. A time traveller comes eventually; a version of themselves from the past. And takes that skull to their present.
And so, this goes on forever: A time traveller visits the future where they are deceased, walks up to their grave, takes a skull on their tombstone, take it back in time and the skull ages down and becomes younger. Then they become deceased and the skull gets decorated on their grave again. And another time traveler comes, and so on.
Observe this closely. Is this not a freaking loop? Answer this question: What is the origin, of this skull? Each deceased person in the grave took it from a future that they once traveled it to. So, from where is this skull from, initially? Is that logically valid question? Maybe invalid? Go ahead, explain your thoughts.