I think the question is fundamentally flawed.

The weight of an object is of no necessary significance to a being who can do anything. The question innately supposes that an omnipotent being must have some physical, corporeal body with muscle mass that would be required to perform the action of lifting an object.

I don't see why weight should be of any significance.

You may as well ask "Can God create a rock so purple that he cannot lift it" ... the color of a rock is just about as inconsequential to a human lifting it as the weight of an object to a being who has no muscle mass.

When you get down to it the question is really: "Can God do something he can't do?", and that's more like silly linguistic gotcha-ism than anything.

Anyway, trying to discuss the nature of God (if one does exist) is about as fruitful as a caveman using common sense and instinct to hypothesize the results of a double slit experiment. Even if we could use arm-chair logic to "reasonable" determine whether or not a supernatural God can exist, we'd still be forgetting that even the natural universe has shown itself to be pretty counter-intuitive at times.

Other ways of phrasing the question, to help demonstrate the linguistic absurdity:

• Can God do something he can't do?
• Can God remove his own omnipotence and still be omnipotent?
• Can God create a resolvable paradox?