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

[Ferrocyanide]

For Aristotle and for Christians, the soul is the form of the body. "Form" here doesn't mean just "shape," because a newly-dead body has the same shape but no soul. As always in Aristotelian hylomorphism, "form" refers to the shape of the parts, their function and interaction. How they work, what they do. 

Roger.

Souls always give form to matter. The matter of the body is carbon, calcium, hydrogen, etc. The way this matter is put together, to make it into the unique thing that it is, is the form -- the soul.

Souls give form to matter and you said "form" refers to the shape of the parts, their function and interaction.
So, you seem to be saying that a piece of graphite has a soul.
You can call it that I suppose. I would just call it the properties of the material, as it is done in chemistry and various textbooks of a scientific nature.

This is why Paul doesn't say that after death the soul will fly away immaterially. He says that the same soul will go to new matter. This is the part of Christianity that demands supernatural belief. We can all agree that bodies have forms, but not that the same form can somehow go to new matter. Aristotle didn't think this was possible, either.

You seem to be using the word soul in the sense of consciousness or ghost in this case which is different from the soul of the piece of graphite.
In other words, if the soul leaves the body, that body is dead (non-moving, non speaking, no thoughts happening in the brain).
Like you said, maybe the soul gets transferred to some other body or to some other universe or maybe it goes to the aether level or heaven level. It very much depends on what the believer wants to believe.

I think the reason for this type of belief is that Aristotle and some of the other boys from centuries ago were not aware of the microscopic world, did not know what the brain was exactly, they did not perform the necessary experiments to figure out how nature operates, they did not have equivalents to compare to.
A person from the 20 th century can compare the human brain with a computer hardware and software or an ASIC. There are various AI software as well.
I use these as clues as to what consciousness is.

Traditionally, however, consciousness is one of the activities of the body made possible by the fact that the body is put together in a certain way -- the form, the soul. Soul is responsible for more than consciousness, however. It's also responsible for all the unconscious processes, and everything that makes a person a person.

Roger.

---

I already gave the arguments.
I’ll simplify it for you:
We live in this reality. This reality has some stuff called space and has various other stuff called subatomic particles, you also have photons.
The way these things interact together is via 4 fundamental forces.
I consider all these things as material things and they exist.

This doesn't refute the opposition to materialism. These are statements regarding what has been observed through science, but none of this negates the existence of non-material things, such as (say) angels.

I wasn’t trying to prove that angels do not exist.
What I was discussing is the difference between what is real and what is imaginary.
You have stuff and you have nothing.
A proton is some stuff. Space itself seems to be some stuff. Nothingness is ............ just nothingness.

For example, you can have number 5 printed on a piece of paper. That isn’t number 5. It is a representation of number 5 made of a collection of atoms/molecules.

You believe that number 5 isn’t made of matter, right? So, number 5 is made of what?

I think that a person should be able to tell what is real and what is not real. That is what this is about.