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

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 The issue is more to do with the Aristotelian vocabulary being outdated.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