Bill and Jane are arguing over the question of God's existence:

Jane: "I'm taking this philosophy class and we've been talking about the existence of God."
Bill: "Sounds interesting. You know, I've got a pretty good argument for God's existence. Do you want to hear it?"
Jane: "Sure."
Bill: "Well, do you accept that textual support can serve as evidence for a claim?"
Jane: "Sure, in certain situations."
Bill: "Well, several texts, such as the books of the Bible as well as the Koran contain textual support for the claim that God exists. Given this textual support, it seems quite reasonable to accept that God exists."
Jane: "As I said, I accept textual support in certain situations. I do have to know if the textual support is any good."
Bill: 'What do you mean?"
Jane: "What I mean is that I have to have good reasons to believe that the evidence is true. After all, evidence has to be true in order to really support a claim."
Bill: "Those books are very reliable. The men who wrote them had special access to cosmic truths."
Jane: "What is the source of those cosmic truths?"
Bill: "That would be God, of course."
Jane: "I see."Burden of ProofAppeal to BeliefPost HocBegging the QuestionBurden of Proof: This is a wrong answer. Bill is making no attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the side that it does not belong on.Appeal to Belief: This is a wrong answer. Bill is not trying to argue that God exists because most people believe in God.Post Hoc: This is a wrong answer. Bill is not engaged in any form of causal reasoning so he cannot be making a causal error.Begging the Question: This is the right answer. Bill is arguing that God exists because there is textual support for the claim. When the textual support is challenged, Bill defends it by claiming that the authors had a special source of truth, namely God. This means that Bill is arguing that God exists and his evidence is that God exists and he told people He exists. This, of course, merely assumes what is to be proven.Consider carefully what Bill is using for evidence.4