On page 44, the example of one character claiming a non-believing character is condemned to hell doesn't seem correct. Maybe there is something missing? The text says:"In this example, the unstated premiss is that there exists a God who sends a subset of people to hell. Hence, the premiss ‘There exists a God who sends non-believers to hell’ is used to support the conclusion ‘There exists a God who sends non-believers to hell.’" To put the example in the form of an argument would imply the premiss (if is wasn't stated explicitly as such in the scene) that there exists a God who sends non-believers to hell. However, for the brief description of the example scene, that premiss is used with the premiss that the other character is a non-believer (apparently supported by the evidence of attestation to that fact) to support conclusion the non-believing character is going to hell. This is an example of the valid argument construction, If A->C;A|-C. The criticism of this argument as circular, therefore, appears to be a straw man. The argument is unsound, however, as the non-believer does not feel that the evidence supports the implied premiss, and the believer is not offering evidence in support of the premiss nor another argument for which that premiss could be a conclusion. It would be circular if the accuser took the non-believer's heel-bound status (as deduced from the argument) as proof that there was a god who sends non-believers to hell.