think of it this way if you stood on the rock that god has created and can not pick up but some how can be supported by my coffee table in my livingroom in england and then moves the entire universe including my coffee table from my referance point everything else has moved except me and my rock i`m standing on:D
But that’s exactly the same thing you would see if you were standing on the rock and it moved. You would see your coffee table receding into the distance as you saw the moon approaching.
Pay attention. There is no ontological difference between moving the rock and moving everything but the rock. Because there are no other reference objects, you can’t tell which witch is which.
Think like Einstein. 
Couldn’t God dynamite the rock and move the pieces? Who’s going to stop Her?
Nice George Carlin reference in the OP, Yozzer2001.
Would the Almighty make a brain so dense that even He couldn’t penetrate it?
AcidKid, you owe me a keyboard to replace the one I spewed my Kool Aid on!
einstein said all things are relative so did the rock move or the universe i am now confused. does`nt matter cause he didint pick it up:D
If God made a rock so big he couldn’t lift it, he could always recruit help lifting it from a bunch of angels from the head of nearby pin.
I have proven conclusively that neither god nor the devil exists in my attempt to sell my soul to the devil.
I think Thomas Aquinas dealt with the “rock too heavy to lift” paradox by saying something like, “Inquiring as to whether G-d may do that which is logically impossible is a form of blasphemy.”
God could, however, create a rock that he doesn’t want to move…
<snort>
Are people still taking this old canard seriously?
By asking the question, you are not saying anything about God; you are saying that you are not able to define “almighty”.
A barber shaves everyone in the village except those who shave themselves. Who shaves the barber? Have all barbers suddenly vanished in a puff of logic?
The problem in both is formally identical: to form the question, you must attempt to include the actor in the set acted upon (or, rather, described). It is a famous paradox that has nothing to do with theology (as can be seen by the fact that you can structure an identical paradox using barbers, or any other actor). Inconsistency in a question is just nonsense; it has no meaning. For Heaven’s sake, this has been around for almost a century, as has the answer.
You do not suddenly give meaning to a bunch of gibberish by putting the words “Can God” in front of them. Gibberish is still gibberish. “Can God make a four sided triangle?” “Can God write a program that solves the halting problem?” “Can God brillig with slithy tothes?” Do you really take this seriously?
Go play tiddlywinks or something. It will be at least as useful as this nonsense.
The classical way to phrase this one is “shaves every man”; the solution is to realize that the barber is a woman. 
There are, in fact, two schools of thought on this point, once which says that God is constrained by the rules of logic, and another that says that God can do anything at all, including violating the laws of logic, because God wrote the laws of logic and can change them if he wishes. Our inability to understand or even express what God might be doing does not mean he cannot do it.
Of course, in my universe God is a Yorkshire terrier, which pretty much rules out almightiness.
Maybe you just have the wrong Yorkie.
No, not “people” as such . . . just bored stoners.
Where did you ever get that idea?
And the Logos Crusader strikes again!
And then there are those who recognize that the rules of logic have nothing to do with what we talk about, but everything to do with how we talk about them.
The very notion of “the rules of logic constraining X” where X is anything at all (including God) except a logical system is absurd; it essentially misrepresents the relationship between logic and the model that a logical statement represents. The rules of logic exist to allow us to make statements about the world so that, when we manipulate those statements according to those rules, we have a reasonable certainty that the conclusions we come up with will still conform to reality.
The very paradox we are discussing came up at the beginning of the last century because Russell recognized that the rules of logic that we were using at the time were deficient; that if we obeyed the rules that we thought were correct at the time, we came up with answers that did not correspond with reality. He devised the Theory of Types to correct this (and the question of whether God can create a rock He cannot lift, or who shaves the barber, are both ill typed according to that theory). We have simpler ways of correcting this problem now, but all of them are ways of making the rules fit reality, not the other way around.
Logic is a way of talking about, and reasoning about, reality. Reality does not “conform” to its laws the way that rocks “conform” to the law of gravitation; there is a difference in kind between the laws of logic and the laws of physics, and treating them the same is to make a category error. A miracle may violate the laws of physics, but it cannot violate the laws of logic, because the laws of logic are the way we use to think about the miracle. They do not govern the events, they govern our thoughts and our reason. To talk about God’s actions violating the laws of logic is to make a severe category error; the only thing that can violate the laws of logic are our thoughts and reasoning about God’s actions.
Nor is logic the only way of approaching such things; Zen Buddhists would say it confuses the finger for the moon. But if we are to use logic and reason to try and apprehend more about God and His universe, we should understand what its role is, and what it can and cannot do.
And we should certainly not spend our time on stupidity like this, which is well known in the field and has been for decades. (By “this” I mean the OP, not the question of “violating the laws of logic”, which is actually a more subtle point. Folks tend to get confused by this more naturally, and not run up against this distinction, which is after all fairly subtle, until grad school in philosophy and logic. This did not become clear formally until the advent of model theory in logic, which is a development of the sixties.)
Oh, something about this guy creating everything that exists in the Book of Sega or something…
Well if God is Almighty then it have to go as far to say that no one thing is greater for if there was then He would no longer be almighty. So the only way for God to ever create something he could not move or will, he would have to create without the will to move or will. However, this is a ridiculous notion because for God to have the ability to create it he must be more powerful than it. How can one really say that God would have to create something greater than he to prove hw was almighty because in effort of proving his almightyness (New word, you like) he would no longer be almighty so I would have to say that for God to have the ability to create such an object he does have but to do so would deny him the title. So to do so would only prove his ignorance (Which he is not) and his lack of almightyness (there it is again).
I swear if this isn’t a dog chasing its tail!
Yes, perhaps a rock that was too big for God to move would be too big not in terms of weight, but simply because it would occupy the entire universe and therefore there would be nowhere to move it to.
Personally, I suspect he’s hot better things to do with his time.