The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I am, however, content to drop this point, as it was meant to be more of an observation than an actual argument. Also, as he has now put the desire in question into words, I have a better understanding of the Argument for Desire, and can now properly refute it. As stated: "Our desire is for a more perfect, more infinite fulfillment of these desires, ones that will be unending. "Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Argument 1: It seems my point here has been misunderstood, and so I will attempt to explain it in more depth, as when combined with my second argument, this is my strongest point. I did not say that the objects to fulfill our natural desires exist only on Earth, nor was it my intent to imply such a thing. Whether or not any of these objects can be found beyond the bounds of Earth, the fact remains that they all can be found on Earth. It's simply meant to point out one of the fallacies of this argument, that being it is an argument by selective observation. An argument by selective observation is a logical fallacy that fails to reveal the entirety of truth. Facts that are counterproductive to the argument are left out, either by oversight or intent to deceive. Any argument that is truly sound is inclusive of all facts that are relevant. Earth is the only place in which we know objects exist that can fulfill each and every one of these innate, natural desires. We may have reason to believe some of them exist beyond Earth, as Pro indicates, but that is not the same as saying they must exist beyond Earth, and it is certainly not saying they all must. Pro would like you to think this is irrelevant, however it is not, nor should it be. To ignore our natural environment when talking about our natural desires would be folly. When this truth is added to the first premise, or anywhere else in the argument, it becomes a non sequitur, which literally translates into does not follow. By changing the first premise, or adding another premise, to show that fulfillment for natural desires can be found in out natural environment (Earth), there is no reason to believe that a natural desire can be fulfilled at all, if it can not be fulfilled on Earth. At this point, what it would actually imply is that if a desire cannot be fulfilled on Earth, said desire is not a natural one. This is where the second argument comes into play. Argument 2: I find the distinction Pro has given in this round to be a much more justifiable distinction. Natural desires being those that are fulfilled by natural objects, and artificial desires being those that are fulfilled by artificial objects. However, I believe there to be a third type of desire that has not been brought up, which would also be the category the desire in question falls into. That is, a supernatural desire, a desire that is fulfilled by a supernatural object. Definition of Supernatural:[1] 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature2b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)Our universe as we know it is bound by the laws of time, and as such, any object that is more than time must be a supernatural object. As a desires type corresponds to the object that fulfills it, any desire that is fulfilled by a supernatural object would be a supernatural desire. As such, the argument enters into an even larger non sequitur, as it is using what we know about natural desires to imply something about supernatural desires, for which we really know nothing about, at least not beyond the desires themselves. Therefore, the argument for desire is not sound. Argument 3: Although I believe Pro has missed the point of this argument (It had nothing to do with the desires of some not being fulfilled), I will drop this argument. It was formed on misunderstanding of the topic argument, due to its vagueness about the desire to which it's referring, and I can no longer consider it entirely relevant. Argument 4: I will add in a final argument now, in case Pro manages to refute the above, as I prefer not to make new arguments when my opponent won't have a chance to respond. Should Pro prove that the desire for "a more perfect, more infinite fulfillment of these desires, ones that will be unending" is a natural desire as opposed to a supernatural desire, it still remains fundamentally different than any other natural desire in two ways. One being that it encompasses all other natural desires, whereas other natural desires are all separate from one another. Secondly, other natural desires do not call for permanent satisfaction, only temporary satisfaction, Because of these fundamental differences, it would be fallacious to assume that the same rules apply. Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. I'm not sure what leads Pro to assert that my argument here was the same as my other arguments. The only similarity was that it refutes the logic of the Argument from Desire, but it does so on a different line of logic. As Pro didn't feel the need to address it, I will repost it here for convenience, and leave it for the voters to decide if it's acceptable refutation. (It reaches the same conclusion as the argument I added this round, but again, on a different line of logic)The inclusion of this premise in the argument makes it an exception to the initial premise. It has to be, otherwise they would be in direct contradiction, leaving only one of the premises the possibility of truth. But because it's an exception, the rules of the first no longer apply to it, and so it cannot be said for certain that something exists to satisfy such a desire. Even if the first premise is deemed true, this renders the argument invalid. In ClosingThe premises in the argument of desire are based on natural desires. However, a desire fulfilled in such a way as the conclusion suggests would not be a natural desire, but a supernatural desire. As such it doesn't follow through logically, and therefore cannot be considered a sound argument. With that I give the reins back to Pro. Sources:[1]: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...