Which type of fallacy is this?

Dr Richard -- If you go back and read the original question more carefully,  the existence of God was not the direct topic of the question. But having said that, can you explain further how the statement "God created the world" is a non sequitur? From my vantage point, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that the world was created by God,  and the statement cannot be merely dismissed as an irrelevant or invalid inference. But as for saying, "God created the world, therefore the bible is the word of God," this is most definitely non sequitur because the conclusion does not follow the premise. But the creation of the world has a long and very rigorous support by many great thinkers throughout history and cannot be merely dismissed as irrelevant. I am not debating here the existence or the non exisence of God, but asking you to support your claim that "God created the world" is being a non sequitur. I hope I am asking the question clearly enough. 

I said, '"God created the world" is an unsubstantiated premise."  It was the balance of the argument prsened that was the non sequitur as explained by others answering. 

I fail to see the statement "God created the world" as being a non sequitur and am prepared to accept that the statement is indeed substantiated via logical proofs and not based merely on speculation or blind faith. Perhaps in another thread, this will come up as it is not the main topic of the original post.