What definition of Deism are you working with? Those provided by Wikipedia and IEP do not take as given your three points.

To the points themselves, and irrespective of the question of Deism, none seems true of Aristotle.

1. In De Anima he seems to think that the higher part of the soul can exist after death.
2. This is false because he doesn't believe in a single God. He always refers to many Gods, many divine things and many 'unmoved movers'.
3. Aristotle seems to think he knows things about Gods that others (e.g. Plato) don't, so point three can't be true.

3) there is no knowledge of us by God. He only knows himself — Gregory

This assumes we are outside of God. We are not in a great location to affirm or deny the possibility.

See Spinoza for details.

What definition of Deism are you working with? — hairy belly

This is, of course, the first question to ask. My first associations with the term was how it was used as a means to distinguish a "natural theology" as a way to recognize an organized creation as discussed by an number of thinkers ranging from Hume to Thomas Jefferson from standing before an angry god.

Your results may vary.

He always refers to many Gods, many divine things and many 'unmoved movers'. — hairy belly

Not always, in some cases he has "God", that could be interpreted as referring to something like a superordinate divinity, e.g., "the activity of God" (he tou Theou energeia) as in Nicomachean Ethics:

But for a living being, if we eliminate action, and a fortiori creative action, what remains save contemplation? It follows that the activity of God, which is transcendent in blessedness, is the activity of contemplation; and therefore among human activities that which is most akin to the divine activity of contemplation will be the greatest source of happiness (1178b8)

Indeed it seems that Eudoxus took a good line in advocating the claims of pleasure to the prize of highest excellence, when he held that the fact that pleasure, though a good, is not praised, is an indication that it is superior to the things we praise, as God and the Good are, because they are the standards to which everything else is referred (1101b6)

Hence God (o Theos) enjoys a single simple pleasure perpetually. For there is not only an activity of motion: but also an activity of immobility, and there is essentially a truer pleasure in rest than in motion (1154b9)

For existence is good for the virtuous man; and everyone wishes his own good: no one would choose to possess every good in the world on condition of becoming somebody else （for God possesses the good even as it is) (1166a5)

Aquinas says that Aristotle thought God(s) didn't know of our particular lives. That sounds like deism the most. Do modern translations of Aristotle say this as well?

Well, Aristotle does not actually say a lot about God. In the Metaphysics he writes:

Hence it is actuality rather than potentiality that is held to be the divine possession of rational thought, and its active contemplation is that which is most pleasant and best. If, then, the happiness which God always enjoys is as great as that which we enjoy sometimes, it is marvellous; and if it is greater, this is still more marvellous. Nevertheless it is so. Moreover, life belongs to God. For the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and the essential actuality of God is life most good and eternal. We hold, then, that God is a living being, eternal, most good; and therefore life and a continuous eternal existence belong to God; for that is what God is (Meta.1072b)

I think Aquinas is trying to say that God does have some form of indirect knowledge of the world. Whether Aristotle himself would agree, is another matter.

On what Aristotle says, it may be argued that God contemplates himself at all times. That would be your point 3).

Classical theists say that deism is wrong because God can't be all powerful and at the same time not know everything. I think God could be all powerful and know everything within himself without having to have knowledge of contingent beings. Aristotle, when he says the world is eternal and that God is not the efficient cause of the world, seems to say that the contingent world flows from God without his will and so perhaps without his knowledge. Understanding ancient philosophical text is hard in the sense of sharing common ideas with the ancient writer through language

It wasn't unusual for ancient philosophers to believe in the existence of a single god, yet also accept as appropriate the worship of more than one god as part of traditional religion. I don't think that the question whether gods were one or many was one they were all that interested in, though they were inclined to think much of traditional pagan religion to be superstition. Sometimes, traditional gods were considered by philosophers to be aspects of the one god. I don't think the pagan philosophers were concerned about the propriety of a particular religious belief in the way Christians were, and so didn't insist that everyone think and act alike. Epicurus believed that the gods existed, but were unconcerned with human affairs. The Stoics believed in a single, immanent deity but were content to worship the gods in the traditional manner.

Understanding ancient philosophical text is hard in the sense of sharing common ideas with the ancient writer through language — Gregory

Correct. All the more so as authors like Aristotle had schools where any unclear issues could be clarified with a teacher, whereas we no longer have access to the original writer.

But if you have established that your three points are correct then you can decide if they fit your description of deism.

Points 2) and 3) look OK to me and so does point 1).

Like Plato, Aristotle believes in a divine element within the human soul, viz. the nous that is immortal.

In Nicomachean Ethics (1177b-1178a) he says that the nous is divine and man’s true self.

In De Anima he writes:

Some hold that the soul is divisible, and that one part thinks, another desires. If, then, its nature admits of its being divided, what can it be that holds the parts together? Surely not the body; on the contrary it seems rather to be the soul that holds the body together; at any rate when the soul departs the body disintegrates and decays (411b24)

So, there seems to be a part of the soul that survives the death of the physical body. But if it merges with the Cosmic Soul or God, for example, then there would be no personal afterlife or separate individual existence.

Not always, in some cases he has "God", that could be interpreted as referring to something like a superordinate divinity, e.g., "the activity of God" (he tou Theou energeia) as in Nicomachean Ethics: — Apollodorus

And I can say, 'man has failed'. It doesn't mean I refer to a single particular man, I just use a collective noun. Just before your first example, he refers to gods while speaking on the same topic, so, no it can't be interpreted like you said it can. Aristotle holds there are many gods. Not a single god. What stands above all, as the first cause, is 'Nous'.

And I can say, 'man has failed'. It doesn't mean I refer to a single particular man, I just use a collective noun. Just before your first example, he refers to gods while speaking on the same topic, so, no it can't be interpreted like you said it can. Aristotle holds there are many gods. Not a single god. What stands above all, as the first cause, is 'Nous'. — hairy belly

Well, both "god" (theos) and "nous" may be used in different ways. But Aristotle does sometimes use "god" in the sense of "God", i.e., supreme deity as in Eudemian Ethics:

But this is what we are investigating—what is the starting-point of motion in the spirit? The answer then is clear: as in the universe, so there, everything is moved by God; for in a manner the divine element in us is the cause of all our motions. And the starting-point of reason is not reason but something superior to reason. What, then, could be superior even to knowledge and to intellect, except God? (Eud. 1248a)

This is therefore the case in regard to the faculty of contemplation. For God is not a ruler in the sense of issuing commands, but is the End as a means to which wisdom gives commands (and the term 'End' has two meanings, but these have been distinguished elsewhere); since clearly God is in need of nothing. Therefore whatever mode of choosing and of acquiring things good by nature—whether goods of body or wealth or friends or the other goods—will best promote the contemplation of God, that is the best mode, and that standard is the finest; [20] and any mode of choice and acquisition that either through deficiency or excess hinders us from serving and from contemplating God—that is a bad one (Eud.1249b)

It seems to me that Aristotle was trying to say something about the world while Plato was trying to help people find a personal truth

No. Aristotle was not a dentist.

Probably explains why he thought women have fewer teeth than men.

In theology 'God', as in a single God, is usually used for the sole creator God of monotheist religions. Aristotle had no such concept. His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'.

As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'. — hairy belly

The final cause?

What about the Greek gods? Were they still present at the time of Aristotle?

Were they still present at the time of Aristotle? — Prishon

Yes.

And did he talk to them? Who was the first mover? Did he move the first kick to make them gods appear?

Dunno, why don't you give him a call and ask him. Then get back to us and let us know. Just make sure you do it before the gods of the forum kick you out of existence.

In theology 'God', as in a single God, is usually used for the sole creator God of monotheist religions. Aristotle had no such concept. His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. As I wrote, it's the first cause, which, ironically, is also a 'final cause'. — hairy belly

“Usually”, but not always. It depends on the religion we are dealing with. I think what @Gregory is trying to establish is how Aristotle views God and whether this amounts to deism.

Of course, different readers interpret Aristotle differently. However, how many Gods are first principle, prime mover, and ultimate cause?

And why does he say to “serve and contemplate God” and not “serve and contemplate Gods”?

Well, I assume that the God Gregory referred to was the God of monotheistic religions, especially since Aristotle was and is still appropriated by theists of that kind. In a subsequent post, Gregory referred to Aquinas, which is further evidence that he tries to understand Aristotle's theology through the lens and the concepts of traditional monotheism. After all, debates about deism and the nature of God almost necessarily involve monotheistic conceptions of God.

As I understand Aristotle, there's one first principle which is Divine, perfect and alive. It's also worthy of reverence. That doesn't mean he believes in a single god or in a single divine thing. It just means that he holds there's a hierarchy between divine things.

His 'God', or 'Nous', was neither the sole god, nor a creator. — hairy belly

Because Aristotle thought there might be many First Movers and the world was eternal so it was not technically created, right?

how many Gods are first principle, prime mover, and ultimate cause? — Apollodorus

Aquinas makes it out as if God is reality itself and there can only be one reality. He also says you couldn't distinguish between different Gods if there were more than one, although I would say "maybe by their individuality?". At this point I think we see Aristotle and Aquinas being at odds (Bertrand Russell said Aristotle thought there were around 60 supreme Gods) and the speculation, in the sense of trying to find the "truth", becomes impossible

The Greeks seem to be divided between materialists and idealists. Plato, Parmenides, the Skeptics, all seem to be about the life of the mind. Those who posited different material substances as the cause of the world seemed to promote a materialistic agenda. Aristotle was different

As I understand Aristotle, there's one first principle which is Divine, perfect and alive. It's also worthy of reverence. That doesn't mean he believes in a single god or in a single divine thing. It just means that he holds there's a hierarchy between divine things. — hairy belly

Sure. I’m not saying you are wrong.

However, if there is a hierarchy of divine beings, then the topmost one is the supreme divine being or God. And if it is worthy of reverence, service, and contemplation, then we have a form of henotheism at the very least.

Of course, Christians, Muslims, and Jews have attempted to interpret this as monotheism, but the question is whether they are entirely wrong. The existence of additional divine beings does not necessarily pose an insurmountable problem. They may be comparable to the Angels of monotheistic religion.

Another possibility would be that Aristotle’s theology really is a kind of monism.

The Greeks seem to be divided between materialists and idealists. Plato, Parmenides, the Skeptics, all seem to be about the life of the mind. Those who posited different material substances as the cause of the world seemed to promote a materialistic agenda. Aristotle was different — Gregory

Aristotle definitely doesn't sound like a materialist. The question is how far he is prepared to go in his antimaterialism ....

Aristotle had a middle ground between materialism and life in the mind