No. I think it's not valid because the "
implications" in the premises aren't actually implied.
For example, the bible could speak the truth, without God needing to exist. This is depending on your interpretation of the question "what is truth?". If we take the bible as metaphorically true, we could say that it has true messages/guidance on how to live a meaningful life. This does not
imply that there is a God.
Alternatively, we could say that God definitely exists, but the bible is not true. In this scenario we could consider that people bungled whatever message God was trying to get across and ended up printing thousands of copies of holy typos. So this means the existence of God doesn't
imply the bible is true.
Yes. I think it has a flaw in the logic. I don't know anything about types of fallacies though
But I would say that it has two extra assumptions in between the two premises. Hidden assumptions that are not actually premises (do not get assumed to be acceptable).
One is that "truth" means a certain thing. It might not actually mean what you assume. True always and all the time? True in what way? True in a metaphorical or literal way? True in some sections? True in its entirety? The word true here is too ambiguous.
The second is the assumption that God is somehow responsible for the bible. As in, God oversaw and approved the bible or rejected bits of it. As a side note, we can recognize that to the devoutly religious, this may be a personal truth, but it need not be everyone's personal truth. There is no evidence that God was involved in the dictating of the bible nor the selection of texts ultimately included. So there's no reason to connect God to the bible.
Speakpigeon, would you be willing to do a post explaining different kinds of fallacies? Or maybe post a link to some good descriptions?
Thanks for considering. The only way I can think to describe it being fallacious is that it's self-contradictory in the implication section. (Sorry, not a logician).