Bahaullah's astounding claim as Origin of all religions

Pro claims that with this truncated version of his argument: "P1 there is no proof for the existence of a supernatural god. P2 is that Bahuaullah claims ALL references to god were references to him. P3 is that Bahualullah exists and there is evidence he does." ...the conclusion "therefore reference to Baha'u'llah is really the purpose of the reference to god" is valid. This is, to repeat, a non sequitur--that is, this conclusion does not follow from the premises. Just because someone who exists claims something refers to them, does not mean that it refers to them, and there is nothing in these premises that *supports* his claim as being the source of references to god. Pro would have us believe that people describing a specific entity (god) were actually describing a completely different entity (the man Bahuallah). Pro's only evidence for this is that the man exists, and makes the claim. That he makes the claim does not make the claim true, which is what Pro is asserting. Pro then complains about "unecesary argumentation". He claims that he "never said the person of Bahaullah is immaterial." Pro argues that ALL references to god are references to Bahaullah, and God is often conceived of as immaterial. [1] Therefore, statements about God's immaterial nature are, by Pro's argument, statements about Bahuallah being immaterial. But he is clearly not immaterial. The entity "god" may or may not exist. But the entity "god" is given characteristics--Bahuallah claims that references to god are references to him, even though he doesn't have those characteristics inherent to the thing being described. He may as well say that all references to unicorns are references to him, even though he doesn't have a horn on his head, isn't a horse, and is a person--just because there's no evidence of unicorns actually existing. It's quite clear that when people discuss "god" they are discussing a particular entity--and that Bahuallah is not that entity. Pro attempts to dodge the immaterial point by arguing that he already admitted to material evidence of Bahuallah. This misses the point. If someone refers to "god", Pro's argument goes, they are referring to Bahuallah. Yet Bahuallah has none of the attributes of the entity they are describing, and it was not their intent to describe Bahuallah. Pro simply hasn't supported any of the necessary aspects to prove his case. Pro claims "There is no evidence that Odin actually existed." Of course, according to Pro's argument, all references to Odin are references to Bahuallah--so then he DOES exist, and is Bahuallah, by Pro's argument. This despite Bahuallah having none of the attributes of Odin and the people talking about Odin being completely unaware of Bahuallah's existence (given that it was hundreds of years before his birth). Pro moves on to say "The story of this imaginary guy named Odin having one eye is a mere mythological story." Him saying this means that he has contradicted himself. He argues that all references to god are references to Bahualla. Then he claims that Bahualla exists. And now he claims Odin (who is Bahualla according to Pro) is imaginary. This is a direct contradiction. Pro continues: "All sorts of characters were always made up by people to tell stories around camp fires. This tradition continues today in DC Comics and Marvel Comics, for instance." I agree. But that doesn't mean that when people are describing Superman, they're describing Bahualla. Nor does it mean that when people describe God, they're describing Bahualla. Pro moves on to say that I am "unnecessarily over-complicating [his] P4. It simply states that people exist on earth ([he is] an example) who accept premises 1-3. In other words I accept that god doesn't exist and therefore all reference to a god in religions is obviously not a reference to someone that doesn't exist (god), but rather a reference to someone that did exist (Baha'u'llah)." Premises 1-3 do not support that "all reference to a god in religions is obviously not a reference to someone that doesn't exist (god), but rather a reference to someone that did exist (Baha'u'llah)."" The idea that all things stated MUST map to a "real" thing, rather than being just wrong is nonsensical. We can reference things that don't exist--for example, Darth Vader does not exist. His nonexistence does not mean that we're actually referring to Bahualla when we're talking about Darth Vader. Again, of course, theists would disagree that god doesn't exist. But even if god does not exist, Pro has still utterly failed to support the contention under consideration. Pro objects that his conclusion is not a non sequitur, claiming that he's "demonstrated" that it follows from his premises. He did not, and it does not. The only way it WOULD actually follow is if we consider it an enthymeme--that there are missing premises. There is nothing in the premises which gives ground for a "truth" evaluation of Bahualla's claims at all. An additional premise, giving grounds for what would warrant calling his claims "true" is absolutely necessary for this argument to be valid. I could make one up, and rebut it, but it's not my job to do so. It's Pro's job to present a valid syllogism, and he failed in that task. I'm also concerned that, because Pro seems to fail to understand what makes a valid logical case, he would think I was straw-manning him with whatever premise I came up with to make his argument valid (but, I would argue, still fundamentally unsound). Pro then goes on to claim that truth is relative. I would argue this is not true--and that which has been asserted without evidence (that truth is relative) can be dismissed without evidence. Pro has BoP here, and has failed in it. He doesn't get to just assert things and have them be taken as true--this is a debate, and he is expected to support his claims. Pro claims that we agreed in P1 that god doesn't exist. But that is, of course, false I conceded that there was no evidence for god. I did not concede he does not exist, although I do think that seems the most likely scenario. Pro claims that "everything said about god in religions is just made-up". If it's just made up, then there's no grounds to assert it refers to Bahualla. Pro's concluding paragraph, such as it is, makes me suspect he's a Poe, or is trolling. Because he has failed to support his conclusion--and his assertion that if he loses it must be because the voting is "rigged" is unwarranted arrogance, and disrespectful to our potential voters. Pro has given us a non sequitur argument that does not support his conclusion. He has contradicted himself. I believe it's clear that the resolution fails. Fundamentally, Pro has given us no reason to conclude that the references of people to the various gods throughout human history are all references to a single man, who was not born until most of them had already been long thought up. Incidentally, I finally looked Bahualla up. I had not thus far, as my issue was with Pro's invalid argument as it stood--not with the religion or its claims itself. Bahualla was born in 1817. As far as I can see Bahualla actually did not claim that all references to god were references to him, but that he was a messenger of god, and "that the essence of God will never descend into the human world." [2] I think my rebuttals of his case stand on their own; it is, however, interesting to find that he appears to be wrong about what Bahualla claimed. Thank you to the readers and voters. [1] --(I shouldn't really have to support that it's a common conception, but I figured it was worth doing so) http://www.probe.org... [2] --http://en.wikipedia.org...