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

[Ferrocyanide]

This was addressed in my earlier post.

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

Nothing in modern science shows that hylomorphism, or Aristotle's definition of the soul, is incorrect.

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

For example:
“Aristotle applies his theory of hylomorphism to biological machines. He defines a soul as that which makes a biological machine thing functional/operational. Being functional/operational is a property of biological machine things, just as knowledge and health are.[17] Therefore, a soul is a form—that is, a specifying principle or cause—of a biological machine thing.[18] Furthermore, Aristotle says that a soul is related to its body as form to matter.[19]”

(Note: I modified the above sentence slightly)

I don’t think that there is anything for science to do here.

It would be like me saying that soul is the thing that makes a car alive.
Or, maybe we can make up another word, such as “shmizmack”

So, let me use the word “shmizmack”
Aristotle from Universe 2471 applies his theory of hylomorphism to car things. He defines a shmizmack as that which makes a car living thing functional/operational.
When a car thing gets into a major accident, the shmizmack comes out and the car thing is no longer functional/operational.
When a biological machine gets into a major accident, the soul comes out and the biological machine is no longer functional/operational.


My sentence above and the one from wikipedia take 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”.

The part that is missing is the description as to how the machine works.
Instead of saying that the machine has a soul or shmizmack, it is better to describe how it works.
Claiming that it has a soul or shmizmack is of no use. it doesn’t teach us anything.

---

When people today talk about the soul they usually mean "person's inner character, containing their true thoughts and feelings," as you will usually find in dictionaries
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.c...glish/soul

Of course, some people believe that it survives after death, but how it is not known.

And it seems that the idea of soul originated from the idea that when the ancient man cremated dead bodies, they thought how the smoke coming out of the body is a soul going to heaven.

I don’t know if the above is true and to which people it applies to.
I have heard that for vikings, when they killed a person, the blood would evaporate and form condensation in the air and they thought that that was evidence for the soul.

As for the origin of the idea of a soul (I’m mean soul in the sense of ghosts) is probably very ancient. It is hard to say who the first human was who came up with it and when humans began to ask the big questions but I think when the question of
“What happens when I die?”
“What happened to my death relative, my friend, my child?”

saying that he is just dead and we just put him under some dirt was a depressing answer. People chose the cheerful answer and comforted each other.
Along with that comes other notions like going to another type of world or a heaven, angels, gods, demons, sacrifices and religious rituals.
Then you get shaman, priests, religious textbooks, gigantic temples and churches, the Watchtower paper getting printed every week, thousands of websites, TV preachers.