The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I wish to thank mrsatan for his thought-provoking response.Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.Argument 1: The fact that the objects that exist to fulfill these desire exist only on Earth is actually irrelevant to the argument. The argument does not state that the objects only exist on Earth, or that we can only find fulfillment here on Earth. Rather, by a simple deduction we can show by the examples of what we can find fulfilled here on earth that there are desires we have that can be filled, not here but elsewhere. That strikes me as saying something like this: "human beings need water to survive, and water appears on Earth. Therefore, water doesn't appear anywhere else in the universe." Now we have never discovered water existing on another planet, though there is evidence that water once existed on Mars. But at any rate, one of the things NASA is looking for is water on another planet to see whether or not there could be life out there.Argument 2: Fair enough. I seems to be clearer, the distinction should probably be made for natural objects to fulfill our desires, or artificial objects to fulfill our natural desires. Either way, that doesn't argue against the premise, itself. If we are to call a desire fo a car a desire, that would be an artificial desire. But if we're going to look at a more fundamental, natural desire like the desire for beauty, then we can show that there are things society uses to bring us these pleasures, like cars an paintings, but there are natural objects to fulfill these desires, like sunsets and flowers. So either way, there is a natural object to fulfill this natural desire, even if humans had never created these objects. Instead, it seems that these objects are created as an extension of the recognition of these desires. (And yes, the reference to Risa was to the planet from Star Trek lore.)Argument 3: Of course we all have moments where we are happy, but as Con has mentioned, they are fleeting. They are imperfect moments because they don't last. Our desire is for a more perfect, more infinite fulfillment of these desires, ones that will be unending. Sure, death may not suffice to end these longings for some people (especially if there really is a Heaven or Hell), the fact that some people don't obtain the fulfillment of these desires doesn't prove that they don't exist. Just because some people starve that doesn't prove that there is not such a thing as food.Con's arguments didn't refute the first premise. The first two arguments were irrelevant as to the truth of the proposition, and the third argument was inadequate because some people not obtaining the fulfillment of these desires does not prove they don't exist.Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.Con used the same arguments to argue against this point, but my responses to them above stand.The premises of the argument are not logically inconsistent. There is nothing inconsistent in arguing that first, every natural desire has a fulfillment, and second, there exists in us a desire that can't be fulfilled here but will be (or can be) fulfilled elsewhere (perhaps in the next life).This premise stands affirmed.Con had another argument which he forgot to include. As I find it much stronger than the others, I will go ahead and respond to it here: "Also, while I think my arguments were all good enough as is, I meant to include that the objects to satisfy our desires don't exist because we desire them. Rather we desire them because they exist. For instance, without food to satisfy our hunger, we would not be able to live, and therefore would not be able to desire food at all. Or anything else for that matter. Same goes for the desires of sex (at least for multiple generations to live) and thirst" I'm not sure this argument works, however. We desire food and drink because we need them to live. But there's no reason to conclude that we only desire them because they exist. Also, we desire more abstract things, like justice and beauty, and they obviously don't exist. They are abstract concepts that don't exist in themselves, yet we still desire them. As the two premises stand affirmed, the conclusion stands affirmed.I look forward to Con's next round of rebuttals.