It doesn't matter how this hypothetical God would "solve" the paradox. You're making up a personality to with a God that can't even exist in the first place in hopes "He" can argue away the paradox. That's sophistry. The paradox doesn't really exist. The original question, "Could God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" contains the following flaws:
1) The object in question is a rock. Why a rock? Why not glass fruit? Because rocks are supposed to be heavy. Where are rocks heavy? In a gravitational field. Therefore the question likely assumes the rock is in the earth's gravitational field. Since God created the universe and all that is in it including the earth, it is unlikely that a rock smaller than the universe and all that is in it would be too "heavy" (another term that assumes gravity). 2) It assumes the Creator would be subject to the laws of the universe that He created-- a baseless and illogical assumption since the Creator must have existed before the universe was created which, of course, could not have been within the universe.
3) The act of lifting is supposedly a physical feat of strength. The absurdity here is that the act of creation would be a far superior demonstration of power than would lifting it.
To grant such a foolish question the status of paradox is to not understand the question at all.
No, Dataman, you entirely misunderstand. The point of a paradoxical question is to show that there is a such thing as a paradox. A paradox illustrates that inviolable limits exist. Something that is A and not B cannot then simultaneously be A and B. For instance, there is no such thing as a square circle. It cannot exist.
Do you understand so far?