The phrase "arguments for believing" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing reasons or justifications that support a particular belief or viewpoint.
Example: "The article presents several compelling arguments for believing that climate change is primarily caused by human activity."
Alternatives: "reasons to believe" or "justifications for belief".
This cocktail of incentives, buybacks and overstated profits was an ideal recipe for creating a bubble, argues Mr Smithers.Although the bears may be overstating their case, there are strong arguments for believing that America's markets are still overvalued even before factoring in a possible sharp slowdown in profits growth.
But it has been startling to see leading scientists employ science itself in arguments for believing in a kind of supernatural: Jürgen Schmidhuber, a prominent researcher in artificial intelligence, calls for what he has dubbed "computational theology," while Baylor College of Medicine neuroscientist David Eagleman has proposed a kind of religious perspective that he calls "Possibilianism".
Rawls also gives distinct arguments for believing that it is rational to retain and act upon a sense of justice.
Coherence theorists have arguments for believing that truth cannot transcend what coheres with some set of beliefs.
But with these caveats aside the pantheist is not without arguments for believing that the universe as a whole displays marks of metaphysical perfection.
This suggests an argument against SETI that is the reverse of Pascal's famous wager argument for believing in God.
More generally, Copernicus had, in the previous century, offered a forceful argument for believing that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the solar system.
But even if he is right, it would be a mistake to see him as offering here an argument for believing in the sorts of things that, on the abundant conception, are to be called "properties" and "relations".
Bowersock, reviewing Shahîd's Rome and the Arabs for the Classical Review in 1986, wrote: "I doubt many will be convinced by the extreme position that [Shahîd] has taken, but his arguments do offer some basis for believing that Philip was seriously interested in the religion".
"Pascal's Wager" is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God.
De Lazari-Radek and Singer argue, in reply to the objection that their argument takes away the justification for believing that pain is bad, that there is no advantage to believing that pain is bad; I am sufficiently motivated to avoid pain without any such belief (de Lazari-Radek and Singer 2014 268 269; for the general point, see Parfit 2011 v. 2 527–30).
