A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[vulcanlogician]

Who are "people like" me?

People who understand Marxism (generally) better than the proletariat does. So, maybe they can speak for the proletarian? Are you this person? Be honest.

[Belacqua]

Who are "people like" me?

People who understand Marxism (generally) better than the proletariat does. So, maybe they can speak for the proletarian? Are you this person? Be honest.

I am not, and have never been, a member of the Communist Party. I do not speak for anyone other than myself. All opinions expressed in this document about Marcel Proust, The Divine Comedy, Hollywood, or the imminent worker's paradise, are strictly my own.

[Jehanne]

Who are "people like" me?

People who understand Marxism (generally) better than the proletariat does. So, maybe they can speak for the proletarian? Are you this person? Be honest.

In my opinion, Karl Marx was, is and will forever remain a great thinker and philosopher simply due to the fact that he advocated an end to child labor, which was prevalent in industrialized, capitalistic societies during his and Engels' lifetimes.

Having said that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is wicked, unnecessary and reckless.

[Belacqua]

In my opinion, Karl Marx was, is and will forever remain a great thinker and philosopher simply due to the fact that he advocated an end to child labor, which was prevalent in industrialized, capitalistic societies during his and Engels' lifetimes.

Seconded. (Speaking strictly for myself.) 

Maybe you've heard -- in late 18th century London a bill was proposed in Parliament that would have required buildings to put out their furnaces while the child chimney-sweeps were inside the chimneys. It was opposed by most landowners and took decades to become law. Lots of orphans got burned up but they were cheap to replace.

Having said that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is wicked, unnecessary and reckless.

I don't think modern Russia has anything to do with Marx any more.

[Ferrocyanide]

You had written:
“Therefore souls are not material, but always exist with matter. Matter always has a form, form can't exist without matter.”


I don’t know what hylomorphism is so I did a weeb search and clicked on the wikipedia link.

Generally speaking, hylomorphism isn't saying anything remarkable. It's just unremarkably true. The issue is more to do with the Aristotelian vocabulary being outdated.

It didn’t seem to be saying much

Like I said, the core of the idea takes the form of
“There is this machine in universe X. This machine does x, y, and z. The reason why it does x, y and z is because it possesses “invent _a_word”.”

Other examples would be:
This TV is a machine. It works the way it does is because it possesses zomba.
This car is a machine. It works the way it does is because it possesses shmizmack.
This video card is a machine. It works the way it does is because it possesses ronkjura.

It seems to be a method of explaining how a machine works by not actually explaining how the machine works.

There is also talk about substances.
Example from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism

Aristotle defines X's matter as "that out of which" X is made.[1] For example, letters are the matter of syllables.[2] Thus, "matter" is a relative term:[3] an object counts as matter relative to something else. For example, clay is matter relative to a brick because a brick is made of clay, whereas bricks are matter relative to a brick house.

^^^^^In other words, you might have a brick and its shape might be a cube and it is made of clay.
There isn’t anything wrong with what he has written.
This is a fundamental concept in science/chemistry.

More stuff from wikipedia:

Change is analyzed as a material transformation: matter is what undergoes a change of form.[4] For example, consider a lump of bronze that's shaped into a statue. Bronze is the matter, and this matter loses one form (morphe) (that of a lump) and gains a new form (that of a statue).[5][6]

^^^^^Yes, you might have a gas such as oxygen and you can place it in a container and it takes the form of the container.
This is a fundamental concept in science/chemistry.

More stuff from wikipedia:

According to Aristotle's theory of perception, we perceive an object by receiving its form (eidos) with our sense organs.[7] Thus, forms include complex qualia such as colors, textures, and flavors, not just shapes.[8]

^^^^^This part is about information processing (collecting data from nature and analyzing) done by a machine.
The wikipedia doesn’t say much else. Perhaps Aristotle, in his papers, describes how the brain functions but most likely not since he is a primitive man, he did not have the benefit of modern education, no access to the equipment to work on the brain.

The issue is more to do with the Aristotelian vocabulary being outdated.

That’s normal. He is a man from centuries ago. He is a primitive man and he desired to understand the world and he did the best he could. At least he didn’t make silly claims about gods secretly giving him information.

[vulcanlogician]

I don't think modern Russia has anything to do with Marx any more.

When did Russia stop having something to do with Marx? At the collapse of the Soviet Union or earlier? With the advent of Stalinism? With the advent of Leninism?

[Disagreeable]

I always find this does well against all claims that God exists:

(1) If God exists then God gave people free will

(2) For God to give people free will then free will must be possible

(3) But free will isn't possible

(4) So God can't give people free will

(5) So God cannot exist.

The form is something like if X then Y if Y then Z not Z so not Y not Y so not X

[Angrboda]

I always find this does well against all claims that God exists:

(1) If God exists then God gave people free will

(2) For God to give people free will then free will must be possible

(3) But free will isn't possible

(4) So God can't give people free will

(5) So God cannot exist.

The form is something like if X then Y if Y then Z not Z so not Y not Y so not X

The argument against that is that if free will were deterministic, then it wouldn't be free will. If it can be described mechanistically, then the outcome is pre-ordained, and that's not free will. Determinism is a metaphysical assumption that can't be tested. It's a lot like physicalism that way.

[Jehanne]

I always find this does well against all claims that God exists:

(1) If God exists then God gave people free will

(2) For God to give people free will then free will must be possible

(3) But free will isn't possible

(4) So God can't give people free will

(5) So God cannot exist.

The form is something like if X then Y if Y then Z not Z so not Y not Y so not X

The argument against that is that if free will were deterministic, then it wouldn't be free will. If it can be described mechanistically, then the outcome is pre-ordained, and that's not free will. Determinism is a metaphysical assumption that can't be tested. It's a lot like physicalism that way.

Of course, such does not make determinism "not true". It may be true, like a beginningless Cosmos, yet somewhat beyond our comprehension.

In any case, free will, in some instances, does not exist; modern science can observe epileptic seizures.

[Ferrocyanide]

I always find this does well against all claims that God exists:

(1) If God exists then God gave people free will

(2) For God to give people free will then free will must be possible

(3) But free will isn't possible

(4) So God can't give people free will

(5) So God cannot exist.

The form is something like if X then Y if Y then Z not Z so not Y not Y so not X

The argument against that is that if free will were deterministic, then it wouldn't be free will.  If it can be described mechanistically, then the outcome is pre-ordained, and that's not free will.  Determinism is a metaphysical assumption  that can't be tested.  It's a lot like physicalism that way.

Either a system is deterministic or it is random.
Deterministic means that there is causality, that there is a certain logic to the system.
For example, an OS such as Windows XP is a deterministic system. It has various functions in its various libraries. One of the jobs of an OS is to take care of the file system that is present on your hard disk. When you try to save a file, the disk subsystem of Windows XP makes a decision as to where to keep that file and it sends commands to the harddisk and the internal logic of the hard disk handles the actual writing operation.

We definitely do not want randomness in such a system.

So, what is meant by “god gave us free will”?
I’m guessing that what they mean is that god gave us intelligence and we use that intelligence to make decisions.
I think one guy told me that if god wanted robots, he would have made us into robots. I think he was implying that a robot can’t have free will because it is something that is programmed.
I think they can since we can already observe software that has free will such as Windows XP.
Being programmed doesn’t mean that the program doesn’t make decisions as it runs.

Randomness or pseudo-randomness is great in certain machines such as lottery machines but if you want to make a “wise” decision”, then I don’t think it is a good idea to roll dices.