That is not a non-sequitur. Fallacy fallacy.
Sure it is. It does not automatically follow, therefore it is a non sequitur. If you wanted to say, "We exist, and I believe it's because we were created by a higher power, that would be a statement of faith, not "fact", and therefore not a non sequitur.
The Theory of Creation is but one of two theories that life itself is supporting evidence. The other is the Theory of Abiogenesis. Both theories are nonscientific theories. They remain circular arguments, when in and of themselves is not a fallacy. Both theories have arguments extending from those initial circular arguments. Both theories are therefore religions.
Nope. Not even close. A religion is based on acceptance based solely on faith. Those who accept abiogenesis as the more likely cause of life do so because they reject the whole "let there be" story, and when there are only two choices, there you are.
Again, one's a theory and the other is blind acceptance. Big difference.
have people trying to prove them. Both theories have fundamentalists in those religions. A fundamentalist makes the circular argument fallacy (the failure to recognize a circular argument).
The Theory of Creation doesn't even require a god or gods. It simply refers to the actions of a intelligence. It does not try to define what that intelligence is. We could be the result of some lab experiment gone horribly wrong on some alien world and they dumped it here to get rid of it. That is still the Theory of Creation.
Nope. Creationism covers the creation of life. Where did those aliens come from?
Christians place the role of 'intelligence' to be a god. That changes nothing about either theory.
Atheism is also a religion.
Nope. Rejecting completely unsupported claims is not religion.
It is not possible to prove a god or gods exist, but it is also not possible to prove a god or gods do not exist. Atheism itself is based on the initial circular argument that no god or gods exist and extend arguments from that.
A non-sequitur fallacy is the use of an unrelated predicate to a conclusion. An example of a non-sequitur argument is, "the last card I drew was a three of clubs, therefore my dog is hungry.". No card or cards drawn have anything to do with dogs or their state of hunger.
That is a super obvious example of a non sequitur. A more subtle example is to make a conclusion about the existence of a higher power just because there is a universe. It's more subtle because it's a direct attempt at providing an explanation for something. It's a non sequitur because it states a conclusion that does not necessarily follow.
If you want to claim a fallacy here, it must be directed to a specific individual making the fallacy.
Ok, pick a believer, any believer, who says we exist because there is a god who created us, and I will direct my statement at him/her/zim/ze/zer/zit.
To someone trying to prove Christianity, for example,that fallacy would be the circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Directing a fallacy to a group of individuals is a compositional error, a fallacy in it's own right. That fallacy occurs when one tries to extend the property of an element of a class across the entire class or to the class itself. You should cautious about this particular fallacy. If the class is people, this fallacy is also called 'bigotry'. That's what 'bigotry' is. If the property being extended is a genetic trait, that fallacy is known as 'racism' also. Those who have a habit of making compositional errors usually make the mistake of applying it to people as the class at some point.
Well, that was just too far afield for me to comment on, but I did want you to know that I bothered to read it all since you took the trouble to respond in detail.
