The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I shall attempt to also make my argument with the same intellectual integrity. Without further adieu. .. As KeytarHero alludes to in round 1, the 'Argument from Desire' was an argument unfamiliar to me. Yet, I felt initially that the argument from desire was a re-package of the argument from personal incredulity. Before properly looking into the matter, I elected to accept the debate feeling that if nothing else, I could play Devil's advocate. Perhaps, I thought, the argument is sound and I will get housed in this debate. I reasoned that this is not necessarily a bad thing and proceeded anyhow. Examining the argument from desire reveals that this argument is most prominently featured within the circle of those who are practicing Christian apologetics. This should not come as much of a surprise due to the conclusions posited by the argument. This becomes a key observation. Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire [1]. Problems arising with premise 1:Evolution would say that 'of course we desire things that can satisfy desire. Why on Earth would it be any way else? ' Simply, humans evolved in Africa to evade being eaten by lions [2]. Obviously this is pretty fast and loose with some very serious science. I'm bringing this up is to illustrate that the arguments to support the first premise are very nearly irresponsibly oversimplified. C. S. Lewis states that "[creatures] are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists" [3]. Allow me to hazard an analogy by restating Lewis. "Animals are not born to desire food unless food exists. " It should more properly be asserted that "any animal which requires nourishment to exist, cannot come to exist unless the object which provides nourishment exists already. " Maybe some would consider this objection to be a minor one, and I somewhat agree. My intent in this is to provide a frame of reference to the motivation behind the premise. Simply stated, this premise advances the idea in the order that "if I desire it, it must exist," rather than "it must exist for me to have any desire for it" (quoting this line in support of Pro's argument would be 'quote mining;' a practice which is simply beneath this debate). Another problem is that this premise approaches absurdity in certain regards. Perhaps we could agree (loosely) that perpetual survival on Earth is an innate desire for humans. Yet, nothing exists that, if discovered/ingested/followed/etc, has demonstrated any efficacy for perpetual survival. This first premise begins the argument from desire on pretty shaky ground, to say the least. Problems arising with premise 2:To make a simple rebuttal: this premise requires a degree of narcissism and ethnocentrism. Again, I will make an analogy with a monologue: "I desire something that nothing in the past, present or future can fulfill. Nothing in nature at any time can fulfill it - ever! I discovered this desire when I was honest and introspective enough with myself. If you are honest and introspective with yourself, you will discover it too, as my desires are representative of all humans at all times that have ever existed or shall ever exist. Have you discovered this desire in yourself? NO! ?! Then you have not been honest about your self-inspection, like I have. " This is absurd, admittedly, but it illustrates one point. This premise should sound somewhat familiar. It very nearly approaches a rephrase of an argument from ignorance. To assert that nothing natural found by an individual has ever satisfied a particular desire does not prove with any certainty that something natural does not exists that would satisfy or explain that desire. "I've never been satisfied, therefore nothing exists that can satisfy me. " This simply does not follow. Unsupported conclusion:It seems fitting at this point to claim that the argument from desire is simply wishful thinking, but I'd be remissed not to illustrate that the conclusion does not logically follow the premises. The argument from desire can be restated in the following form:X is stated as true. If X is true, Y must be true. Therefore, Y is true. All true human beings are born from other true human beings. But there exists, either through evolution or creation, the "first humans" that were not born from other true human beings. Therefore, not all human beings are true human beings. The conclusion falls apart because it is neither supported by the premises, nor do the premises hold any significant value. Even excusing the crude language of the premises in the previous example and agreeing that the first humans were not necessarily humans as we would classify them today, we cannot support that this form of argument is a sound way of achieving this understanding. The reasoning is circular, at best. This is merely the 'self-fulfilling prophecy. ' "I feel X, so X must be true. " It may be said that the 'soundness' of the argument from desire rests upon the validity of the first premise. In fact, it may be proclaimed that without finding a 'natural desire' that doesn't correspond with some 'real object that can satisfy that desire,' then the first premises is sound. Pro elaborates Kreeft's position that there are two kinds desires: natural and artificial. Pro has also previously described the difference (according to Kreeft). One of the larger problems I find in the entire argument is that there is an obvious opportunity to insert a measure of uncertainty to the proposition, rather than proclaim it to be definitively so (i. e. , ". .. there must exist. .. "). It is entirely possible that desiring something which ". .. nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy" is itself an artificial desire. Indeed, the object(s) of this desire vary from person to person, generation to generation. The very existence of those people that do not (by their own proclamation) have desires which nothing can satisfy seems to defeat the argument as well. "Something must have started it all: a force greater than all others, a source from which everything issues. A prime mover. In the mind of such a person, that something is, of course, God. But what if the universe was always there, in a state or condition yet to identify - a multiverse, for instance? Or what if the universe, like its particles, just popped into existence from nothing? Such replies usually satisfy nobody. Nonetheless, they remind us that ignorance is the natural state of mind for a research scientist on the ever-shifting frontier. People who believe they are ignorant of nothing have neither looked for, nor stumbled upon, the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos [4]"Pointedly, the argument is only put forth by those who've already presupposed and/or desire its conclusion. Desire is not a sound way to investigate reality, nor is it a sound argument for it. Lastly, I will pose a question to Pro by rephrasing the original argument:Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Premise 2: But there seems to remain those desires for which we know of no natural way to satisfy. Conclusion: Therefore, there must exist a natural explanation as to why these desires remain at all. Is this argument more sound, less sound, or equally as sound as the original? Why, or why not? [1] . http://www.peterkreeft.com...[2] . http://humanorigins.si.edu...[3] . http://www.goodreads.com...[4] Neil deGrasse Tyson. Death by Black Hole, pgs 1498, 1499.