Bahaullah's astounding claim as Origin of all religions

Pro challenged me to this debate, and refused any attempts at a reasonable adjustment of his resolution (see comments). I have, to some extent, lost patience with Pro, and so accept the debate as he issued it. Pro is locked into this specific formulation of his argument. Further, Pro has the full BoP for his case in support of the conclusion. So let's look at this argument: Pro says: P1. There is no proof that god exists. P2. Bahaullah claims that reference to god was always a reference to him, not to some imaginary being. P3. Proof exists that Baha'u'llah existed, including photographs and hair samples and his grave site is apparent and obvious. P4. Many people believe in Bahaullah. C. Baha'u'llah's claims is true (at least for those who believe him) in so far as there is evidence that he existed, while there is a lack of evidence that god exists. There are a host of problems with this argument. As to P1, first, most theists would deny that there is no proof that god exists. As an atheist, though, I'm willing to accept P1. P2 is that Bahuaullah claims ALL references to god were references to him. This is merely a claim. I can concede that he claims it. That doesn't make it true. P3 is that Bahualullah exists and there is evidence he does. This can be conceded--a man named Bahualullah exists. But by being a man, we've already negated that he is, say, immaterial (a common theist conception of god), or any of a dozen other criteria for god (for example, Odin was missing an eye--Bahuallah is not. Odin is a god, thus, the reference to Odin, the one-eyed god cannot be a reference to the 2 eyed man Bahualullah). P4 is that people "believe in" Bahauallah. To "believe in" something is a slippery concept--is Pro saying that they believe his claims are true, or that they believe he exists? If the former, it's an irrelevant appeal to popularity, as how popular something is has no bearing on whether it's true. If it's the latter, it's irrelevant as P3 already says Bahualullah exists. The conclusion that Pro gives, that "Baha'u'llah's claims is true (at least for those who believe him) in so far as there is evidence that he existed, while there is a lack of evidence that god exists" is a complete nonsequitur. It doesn't follow from the premises whatsoever. Further, it has other problems, as well--it implies through it's parenthetical that there's a different "truth" for believers than the "truth" for nonbelievers, which is nonsensical--the truth is the truth. They may FEEL it's true, but that doesn't make it true--you may "feel" that a bus won't hit you, but if it's barreling towards you, the truth is that it's going to hit you. If god DOES exist, then his lack of evidence would be irrelevant to whether Bahaullah's claim was true--Bahuallah's claim is FALSE under those conditions, regardless of whether there is proof that God exists. Further, references to god are diverse and contradictory and, while Bahuallah may be agreed upon to exist, there is absolutely nothing within THIS argument that supports him being, for example, the son of Odin. Or a maximally great being. Or Allah. That he claims he is all of these things is fine and dandy--anyone can CLAIM a thing, that doesn't make it true whatsoever. Pro has offered an argument that is a nonsequitur, logically fallacious, and that, in its conclusion, includes a nonsensical view of "truth". As such, Pro has failed in his BoP and, given that he is locked into THIS formulation of his argument, the resolution stands negated. I turn the floor over to Pro.