Had to google to see what you meant. Seeing how this was about 1976 that I asked, I’m sure she meant god was busy doing things like keeping airplanes in the sky, making sure the Jello set, and that the grass turned brown under the dog shit.
I agree with Zev’s and Polycarp’s comments, but I’d like to add: the rock riddle is ultimately silly. The far more interesting paradox is: if God is omnipotent, how can there be room for human free will or freedom of action? And the answer is that God deliberately limits Himself to allow human beings to exist and make choices.
Hence with the rock. God could limit Himself to not lift a rock, just as God limits Himself not to interfere with human freewill, even when humans make bad choices.
Why is this point lost on so many people?
A guess would be because many people tend to identify (to some degree or other) a coporeal being (Jesus) with God.
Zev Steinhardt
The question in the OP is well-posed and contains no internal logical inconsistencies, contrary to some subsequent posts. I can’t technically make a rock, but I could easily make a ball of clay too big for me to lift. Also, I can dig a hole that is too wide for me to jump across. Can God?
This is not necessarily the defining characteristic of the God concept. It’s simply an attribute attributed to a deity that is defined by other measures, similar to calling a person “smart”. We can argue the person’s intelligence without arguing their existence.
Which is rather unfortunate, especially since it is a pretty poor interpretation of who and what Jesus is in Christianity. I think that far too many people on the planet are modeling god on themselves.
Doesn’t this sound a little too convenient and almost comic-booky? It makes me think of “Well, a guy that actually eats planets would be so large as to be meaningless, so we’ll just make Galactus about 25 feet tall so we can drop him in midtown Manhattan.”
I don’t agree with you here at all, but if you’re really sticking to your guns on this one, let me ask you this: Why? Why would God go through all the trouble of creating the universe, then the Earth, then the human race, and then limiting his own power so we can disobey him and he can punish us? Is he playing some sort of game?
I’m not attacking your beliefs, but rather I’m genuinely curious. You make a bold statement here and I want to know if you stand by it with everything that it entails, and if so, how you explain and/or justify those things.
So forget logic, and answer the question.
Are you being facetious? If not, you forget logic and answer the question. I’m curious as to what your answer would be. In fact, once you’ve forgotten logic, please draw me a square-circle, a red-blue, and a light that is on and off at the same time. I’ve always wanted to know what they look like.
Surely God, if He existed, could become corporal and eat, breathe, sleep and die, if He decided to give it a shot? Don’t Christians believe he did pretty much exactly that in the form of Christ?
Even ignoring the Christ example if that doesn’t count for some reason, why couldn’t He become corporeal, eat some food, breathe some air, take a big crap? What logic prevents this?
True, but I specifically allowed for this in my response. Since the OP did not specify what definition of “God” he was using, the only reasonable assumption in a forum with this much philosophical variety is that his referent was the common concept of God brought up in other threads here, and the one held (whether as a referent for a specific existent deity or not) as a concept by most Americans – viz, the (Islamo-)Judaeo-Christian deity, differently attributed but with a common set of characteristics, among them omnipotence or something very like it.
Generally, if somebody starts a GD thread talking about what God thinks of abortion or homosexuality, they don’t mean Huitzlipochtli or Offler.
Why yes!!
Now if you meant too heavy for him to lift because it is heavy, then no.
I can do that; the answer is “meep”.
My question was directed at astro, who offered a bit of nonsense about God not having to be confined by our logic. Since the question does not require God to obey our rules of logic, one supposes that astro can toss out that distraction and go ahead and answer the question for us.
To the contrary, the answer is “mu.” 
I think you need to read more carefully. I posited two follow up questions related to the context of the original question (see quote below), not a declarative statement, and subsequent posters have answered all these questions quite succinctly.
If you feel they have not please advise which aspects of the original question or the follow ups are proving to be stumpers for you.
If you want a more specific answer, you need to add as a premise what the nature of God is. The logical problem with your question is that for anyone to answer it using logic, then you need to frame it AS a logical argument. I can’t apply logic here by not knowing what you presume are the properties of “God”.
I did take your questions out of context, not realizing you asked the OP. I retract my own question, or at least the snotty part of it. My purpose was to demonstrate that wondering rhetorically why God must obey the laws of logic does not solve the problem.
Which is why I qualified my statement by saying “In the Judaic sense.”
The answer to that question is no. Based on a verse in Malachi, the Jewish position is that God does not change. As such, He does not suddenly decide to corpify Himself, copy Himself or kill Himself.
Which was why I answered Jake the Plumber as I did.
The verse I mentioned earlier from Malachi.
Even without the verse, the concepts I mentioned above would be troublesome. We define God as a Perfect Being. If a Perfect Being were to change, that would imply that either the state He was in beforehand wasn’t perfect, or the state to which He changed wasn’t perfect. In either event, it runs completely counter to standard Jewish thought on the subject.
Zev Steinhardt