Does the following argument beg the question? :"The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

Begging the question is when the conclusion is assumed in the premises. If we do consider this an argument, we can say that "The belief in God is universal" is the conclusion and "after all, everyone believes in God" is the premises. Stated another way that is more recognizable,

"Everyone believes in God, therefore, belief in God is universal."

This would be more of a distinction without a difference<> or a generic form of circular reasoning<>. Outside of a fallacies, it is an unjustified claim and an form of exaggeration . When someone sees any statement like this, they should question the claim being made. The premise should justify the conclusion, not simply restate it. For example,

"All 7+ billion people were surveyed on the planet and they all said they believe in God, therefore, belief in God is universal."

Besides being false, this would be a justified claim free from fallacy. Remember, fallacies are only part of the problem. Passing off a claim as fact without justification is common in argumentation.

On a side note, perhaps the term "universal" can be referring to the every culture believing in some form of a god, not every member necessarily believing in a single "God" figure. If this is what is meant by the initial statement, the statement would be problematically ambiguous and imprecise .