The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

Thanks to Con for his rebuttal.In defense of premise 1:I don't think Con's rebuttal works. For example, many things exist which we don't desire. We don't desire poison, yet poison exists. So simply claiming that we desire something because it exists is clearly false. Also, trying to argue from evolution alone is also not an appropriate response, since God could have used evolution as the method by which to create humanity, instilling in us these desires. It seems to me that Con is misunderstanding the argument here. The argument is not claiming that we have desires for things that exist, or that when things exist, we will desire it. The argument is simply stating that for every natural, innate desire we have, there is a real and natural object to satisfy that desire. It seems that Con should use this line of reasoning to respond to premise two or the conclusion, but his line of reasoning here does not negate the premise.Con presents another argument, one that actually addresses the premise. However, it does not succeed. It is a natural desire to want to survive, and we can attain that. But Con arguing that we would desire perpetual survival actually argues for the Argument from Desire, and not against it. We can't obtain perpetual survival here on earth, but if there really is a God and an afterlife, then we can surely obtain perpetual survival. While we can obtain our desire for survival, the desire for perpetual survival is one of the desires that the Argument from Desire argues for, the satisfaction by attaining something infinitely more than the finite and partial survival that we can attain here.This premise begins the argument on secure ground. In order to refute the first premise, Con would have to find a desire that we have innately and naturally that does not correspond to some real and natural object to satisfy it. Con has not done so, so this premise stands firm.In defense of premise 2.The problem with Con's attack of the second premise is he is assuming that I did not support premise two in the opening argument. I did provide such a defense, however. All throughout history you have account after account of people who had attained earthly wealth, lots of women, etc., and still yearned for something more. There is something innate in us that tells us that all this world can offer us is not all that there is, or at least it can't be that way.On might say that Con keeps using that word ("absurd"). I do not think it means what he thinks it means. "Absurd" does not mean "I disagree with your argument." I don't think Con has shown one thing in this argument that actually is absurd.Con has simply not offered a proper rebuttal to this argument. It is not an argument from ignorance. The argument is not that there is some mystical object that we all long for that doesn't exist in this world. The argument is that there is something more than what we can find here. Not necessarily different, but more perfect and infinite than the desires that we find here. You can amass all the wealth and lovers you want, but there will still be a desire for something more, the innate knowledge that it can't be all there is to existence.Premise 2 remains firm.In defense of the conclusion.I don't think it's altogether relevant to claim that the argument amounts to wish fulfillment. For why this is irrelevant, I'll let the words of Alvin Plantinga take over: "Is this Freudian claim [wish-fulfillment] incompatible with Christian belief? Could I accept Christian belief and also accept Freud's explanation or account of it? Well, maybe. For it is at least possible that God gets us to be aware of him by way of a mechanism like wish-fulfillment. According to Augustine, 'Our hearts are restless till they rest in you, O God.' But then it might be that one way God induces awareness of himself in us is through a process of wish-fulfillment: we want so much to be in God's presence, we want so very much to feel his love, to know that we are loved by the first being of the universe, that we simply come to believe this. I don't say that's in fact the way things go; I say only that it is possible and not incompatible with Christian belief." [1]So as we see, even if it is wish-fulfillment, this does not disprove the argument itself. Con's "restatment" of the argument shows that he doesn't truly understand it. In his restated argument, the two premises are clearly contradictory. But the two premises in the Argument from Desire are not contradictory, or at least not obviously so, and Con has not demonstrated that they are. These premises are not simply asserted, they are argued for (and I presented arguments to support them).Con has asserted that the argument commits at least three logical fallacies (begging the question, being a non sequitor, and the argument from ignorance). However, he has failed to show how my argument has committed any of these fallacies.The desire in question (which nothing on earth can satisfy) is not an artificial desire, it is a natural desire, one that all humans throughout history have felt at some point in their lives.So far the argument stands firm. Con's objections either fail to refute the premises of the argument, or they are irrelevant, case depending. Dismissing it because "it is only put forth by those who have already presupposed and/or desire its conclusion" is nothing more than the genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter how the argument came about, what matters is is the argument true? Can the premises be supported? Clearly they can.As a final note, the last argument Con supports is not sound, as the conclusion does not follow. If premise two is correct, then the conclusion would not follow as premise two argues that there are desires which there are no natural ways to satisfy. Conversely, the Argument from Desire as supported by Kreeft is a sound argument.I await Con's response. [1] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY, 2011, p. 149.