The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I apologize again for the delay in posting my response, and for how brief it will be. I'll try and get straight to the point. I'm not sure what Pro meant to illustrate in his rebuttal by stating that "we don't desire poison, yet poison exists. " I haven't proposed that humans evolved to desire everything that exists. I simply noted a difference in accepted perspectives. Those who believe in a creator might say that evidence for a creator is present in the fact that everything in our solar system and on Earth in particular is hospitable to our survival. The counter perspective would note that, of course we exist on a planet where the conditions are hospitable for survival. The main difference is, quite obviously, the 'need' to call upon the supernatural to explain things. To attempt to state this perspective one more time in a more simple fashion. .. We are not born desiring strawberries, and therefore strawberries exist. Rather, we are introduced to strawberries and, if we find them agreeable to eat, then we may desire them. I have offered that, simply, the desire for the metaphysical to exist does not provide any evidence that the metaphysical exists. It is not reasonable to believe so. The idea that human desire is boiled down to simply those things which are natural and artificial, and that because some proclaim a longing for 'everlasting satisfaction and simultaneous fulfillment of all desires at all times at once' that it must be so, is not rational. Pro states in defense of premise 2 that "there is always the feeling that life can't be all there is, there is the longing that there must be something more. " Quite simply, this is a desire that is demonstrably not uniform. To speak only for myself, I do not want, "and want acutely, something that cannot be had in this world," as it is stated by C. S. Lewis. Specifically, I do not consider it any sort of valuable endeavor to desire for something to not be so because I find it displeasing, or to desire for a moment of extreme satisfaction to endure forever because it is pleasing. At risk of Pro noting that I keep "using that word," this premise is absurd. I feel justified in noting that, in a response of very nearly 9,000 characters, I used that word twice. Once in reference to my own analogy, admitting that it "is absurd, admittedly, but it illustrates one point. " I don't understand why Pro has taken such a strong objection to my twice using this word, but perhaps I hurt his feelings by using it in reference to the argument for desire. I apologize for this, as it wasn't my intent to hurt any feelings. The argument for desire is only sound to those who would desire the conclusions drawn by it. For myself, I'm attracted to what is real, and what is truth. I maintain a high standard for each. Something is not true because I find the prospect of it being true more desirable than if it's not. I desire a cure for cancer. That desire is not, in any rational way, that there will one day be a cure for cancer or that there is a separate metaphysical existence where there is no cancer. To (hopefully) ward off any criticisms that I may think the following word means "I disagree," I shall define it here. ab·surd əbG2;sərd-G2;zərd adjective adjective: absurd; comparative adjective: absurder; superlative adjective: absurdest 1. (of an idea or suggestion) wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate. "the allegations are patently absurd" synonyms: preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical, laughable, risible, idiotic, stupid, foolish, silly, inane, imbecilic, insane, harebrained, cockamamie;More unreasonable, irrational, illogical, nonsensical, incongruous, pointless, senseless; informalcrazy, daft "what an absurd idea! " antonyms: reasonable, sensible (of a person or a person's behavior or actions) foolish; unreasonable. "she was being absurd—and imagining things" At it's core and most simply stated, the argument from desire states that: "I desire food, and this desire is satisfied. (This remains unstated but implicit in the conclusion: I desire everlasting satisfaction of all desires). I do not achieve everlasting satisfaction of desires. Therefore, there must be everlasting satisfaction of all desires. This is circular reasoning. It is stating "X, therefore X. " It appeals to the emotions of some. And to those people who are easily influenced by this appeal, the argument seems reasonable, but it remains nonsensical to argue for something to be true because it would be 'desired. '