@Mephistopheles phil,
The question is meaningless. It has no truth-conditions that we have epistemic access to. The common way to go about answering it is to assume that "to make," "to lift," have their customary sense while "God" has a customary sense. But God doesn't. It's a technical term that requires elucidation before one can answer the question adequately. Thus, it depends on how you define God, and
since the new term is being predicated with properties, one must shift or redfine the meaning of the terms taken to have their customary sense. They must now have a new technical sense.
If I say "The dog told me where to save Timmy" this isn't just like "Bob told me where I could find my wallet."
Obviously "Bob" and "The dog" are categorically different names (they're different species, for one). Thus, in the former "told" takes on a technical sense or has, at least, an idiosyncratic sense with respect to the latter sentence. So whereas the latter is self-evident what it looks like for one person to tell another person something, it is not as self-evident what it looks like for a dog to "tell" a person something.
By analogy, it requires clarification of what the definition of "to lift", etc are supposed to mean when predicated of a thing like God. If you define God as "just another human being" then you can answer
the particular question. Namely, yes, he can. Answering this question is quite easy. The
hard part is the conceptual commitments you make by defining such a term (God) in such a way, for your conceptual commitments within the context of that question are typically (by clever atheists, etc) taken to hold for the span of the responder's other beliefs.
But nothing says that the responder
must be consistent with one question. I could easily define God as such for that question
just to answer it. I could also just as easily ask, "How is it relevant how I answer the question? How is the conclusion, whatever it is, relevant to the rest of my other beliefs? Show me that first."
And I'm serious about that. We can play logic games like this, in an attempt to be clever or intellectual, but perhaps we should understand why we play these games in the first place and whether they (as language games) relate to the other language games we play (such as going to church, praying, giving religious guide, moral guidance, etc).
So that can't apply. Yes we may not be able to get to the heart of the issue, but it would a something to prove, not the truth of whether the cosmos were binary or not. Purely or partially. Although, I think that for something like God we should look at dimension, whether that will inevitably evoke a binaric system. But whatever.
