It just wasn’t meant literally. Again, it’s rhetorical. That’s still an argument…

It’s not a great argument if taken literally but that’s also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn’t relevant(I’m not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

I’m essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

Replace god with nature, basically.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you’ll have your reward? But it’ll also be your undoing.