Discussion 2 week 11-17 Violating the principle of Rational Discussion

Begging the Question: is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or we can assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of reasoning is explained in this form: Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is, it could be directly or indirectly. Then the claim C is true. This reasoning is a fallacy because assuming that the conclusion is true directly or indirectly in the premise does not show evidence for conclusion. For example: If a person say God exists and other person ask how do know? Then the other person says because it is in the bible. So if it is in the bible we should believe it. So point of the claim is to convince that a claim is true. So the premises of the argument have to be more plausible than the conclusion