Just a quick note to finish off. 
This is from Dave Nevins, who emails in 
on the debate we had on 
The Argument from Desire.
Peter Kreeft was our Christian philosopher
putting that forward.
You say:  [Dave to Justin] 
"Thanks for the splendid work...
Apparently though any have been misunderstood
C.S. Lewis' Argument from Desire as saying
'if I have a desire, 
then the object of it exists.'
By itself, that's obviously false.
Rather, the Argument from Desire is a simple
following of the signs.  It says:
1. that every innate, non-artificial desire has a real target -- an actual possibility of being satisfied.
For example: 
air, water, sex, food, friendship, knowledge, beauty, etc.
2. The desire for infinite 
love / perfection / paradise / Heaven
(i.e., God) is innate.
Nearly all will admit those premises -- the
best explanation is the obvious one.
Two attempted escape options are to either:
a.)  try to deny that we have 
the desire for God, or
b.)  to falsely view God as somehow 
less than we desire.
Yet the signs align.
 The way to validate the desire is true, 
is the same for every other desire:
which is not primarily 
to merely think about it,
but to 'taste and see' -- that God is good."
(Psa 34:8)
