The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I wih to thank Con, again, for taking the time to debate this with me.I would just like to add that I had put the desire in question into words in my opening argument, though it's possible I wasn't clear enough. From the opening argument, I stated, "The desires of this erth are fulfilled by finite satisfactions; the X in question is more. Not more in terms of quantity...But more as in quality. The mysterious X this argument points to is infinitely more, as we are not completely satisfied with the finite and partial." In defense of premise 1:Con's response that the argument commits the fallacy of selective observation is unwarranted. The argument is a simple deductive argument. All of the natural, innate desires that we do have have real objects to satisfy them. So if there is nothing here on earth that can satisfy one of our desires, then it follows that we were created for another world. Con has failed to refute this premise because he has failed to locate any natural desires in us that can not be fulfilled.So regarding Con's second argument, strictly speaking, it is irrelevant to the first premise. It should really be used to attack the second premise. All the first premise is saying is that every natural, innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it. Con has failed to show us a natural, innate desire that can not be fulfilled here on earth, so the first premise stands. If he wishes to use this argument to attack the second premise, then it is still irrelevant to the premise. The "real" object that can satisfy the desire may be supernatural, but that doesn't mean that our desire for the satisfaction, itself, is supernatural. That simply does not follow.Con has dropped his third argument, and the argument I responded to in the comments, so only the first two arguments, of which I responded to above, and the fourth argument, which I will respond to below, are relevant to the discussion.So regarding Con's fourth argument, I think that his argument that this desire encompasses all other desires does not bear much weight in the long run. It does not encompass all other desires, such that fulfilling this desire will automatically result in the fulfillment of all the others. Rather, in order for this desire to be fulfilled, all other desires must be fulfilled. It's not a "blanket" for all of the desires. Secondly, our natural desires do call for permanent satisfaction, we just can't obtain permanent satisfaction here on this earth. For example, we all desire to survive, but despite this there will still come a day when we die. It seems clear that premise one of the argument remains unscathed. In defense of premise two:I was responding to Con's statement: "For the same reasons as above, I agree with this statment, except that I would apply it to all desires, and only bcause no desire can ever be truly satisfied. The satisfaction is always temporary." It seemed to me that Con was expecting his arguments from premise one to apply to premise two, so I was indicating that my rebuttals to those arguments apply her, too.The premise, here, is not an exception. It is simple deduction. If our desire for something more is a natural desire (and it doesn't follow that if it has a supernatural object to satisfy it, that the desire, itself, is supernatural), and all of our natural desires have a real object to satisfy them, then it follows that this desire for something more has a real object to satisfy it. That is not an invalid argument (it is logically valid), and if the premises are more plausible than their negations, the argument is likewise sound. Con has not sufficiently argued against either of the premises.It is likewise clear that premise two remains firm.Conclusion:Premise one remains because Con has not supplied an innate, natural desire that does not have a real object to satisfy it. Premise two remains because Con has not shown that there is no desire in us which can't be satisfied here on earth. He did argue that the argument is invalid because I am arguing for a supernatural desire, but as I have shown, it doesn't follow that the desire is supernatural even if the object to satisfy it is.I once again thank Con for his time, and I thank you, the reader, for taking the time to consider it.