What is interesting that there are still scholars that argue DeMunda is Aristotle's work. This review doesn't really go into the arguments those scholars make, but it would be interesting how they came to that conclusion. Arguing it is a stylized hybrid political philosophy by Ari? It seems quite obvious from the above, Ari's unmoved mover is not the god of De Mundo. Thanks for the link F.

Even today we can see De Mundo as Aristotle’s alternative to his teacher Plato’s Timaeus. The theological conception of God as the great Demiurge, the architect, the master of a variety of crafts, the eminent Technitēs, has been replaced here by a transcendent God and his cosmos-pervading Power, because Aristotle had come to see the cosmos in a biological model. He understood God as a Begetter (Genetōr) who indirectly creates a product that resembles him, via semen, in which not He himself but his Power is active. This grand scheme accommodates the view that pneuma in the sphere of mortal creatures is the analogue of the divine ether as the vehicle of life and movement and the instrument of the soul;[7] and even the introduction of a new series of names for the planets[8] related to the divine Power that permeates them all as a ‘Golden Chain’, to a lesser degree as the distance to the Origin is greater.

~ from review by Abraham Bos of new commentary on the De Mundo:

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.06.24/

In case you are interested: My response to the following comment was published on Feser’s blog but I do not know why it cannot be seen publicly.

The comment was: “... the conjunction of "Alice freely wills to do P" and "X foreknows that Alice will freely will to do P" entails a contradiction. So if Alice freely chooses to do P, no mind can foreknow that Alice will freely choose to do P.”

My response was below:

I think the problem you raised can be solved by noting that:

God foreknows that Alice has not decided at time T1 whether she would freely do P,

and God foreknows that Alice has freely decided at time T2 that she would do P.

So there is no contradiction between God foreknowing freely chosen decisions and the existence of such kind of free will in Alice.

:)

Cheers!
johannes y k hui

The day will come when you can see your friend again in the future general resurrection. Have a good, and better, 2021 too.

:)

M'Lad Aristotle was before Christ and reason is reason. Reason proceeds Faith and one must have reason to believe and a motivation for belief.

>Philosophy doesn't t prove Catholicism.

How would know?

"Go away now."-The Critical Drinker.

No, because Philosophy doesn't t prove Catholicism. Catholicism was around way before Aquinas.

So you move the goal posts again because you have no coherent argument and you are trapped in a terminal case of "Boo hoo! No fair! Yer not a fundamentalist!" Yep!

>Some obscure Talmudic source out of various non-canon stuff isn't a strong defense.

Yer standard was "This is made up" obviously it is not. Now yer just kvetching because you have no coherent criticism to offer other than to advocate for Fundamentalism & Bible Only'ism Protestantism because you lack the skills to take on Classic Theism or Catholicism.

That is on you son.

>You'd think something that important would make it into canon scripture or Apostolic Tradition.

But it is tradition. OT Israel was the proto Catholic Church therefore their patrimony & tradition is ours too. What you didn't know that? You think it is just post NT ah no! Since when?
I have a book by TAN BOOK & PUBLISHERS on the Mass that goes into the OT oral traditions on the Passover to shed light on the Mass. This isn't a novelty this is Catholicism 101.

Jews like Catholics do NOT believe in Scripture alone and all pre NT traditions belong to us too. You really didn't know that? Of course not. Yer too busy being an Atheist-Baptist hybrid or something equally weird and you refuse to learn Philosophy thus limiting yer contra Religious polemics.

OTOH I already said one need not take this as divine revelation but it does show that Bible believing Jews had no trouble believing Adam and Eve lived with humanoids without souls whom they inter breed with at times thus it is compatible with the Genesis story.

>Plus rabbinical stories are pretty random. The original version of the story you're talking about says "centaurs", not "demons" or "hominids".

Nope! The term they use is "Wild Men"/Adnei Hasadeh or "Man of the Fields".
That they may have talked of other mythical creatures doesn't change the fact they believed Adam and Eve where not the only humanoids in the garden. Also there is no reason to believe they took these stories literally. Allegory is riff threw Rabbinic literature. Rashi for example didn't take Genesis One literally and believe along with Philo in instantaneous creation via Genesis 2:4-5.

In medieval times many Rabbis thought these creatures where "Plant Men" but as Rashi noted they are properly "beasts of the fields" which is what they would be not having a Nefesh/Soul.

Still as I said the point is not that this is divine revelation but that the early Jews had no trouble believing Adam and Eve had souless humanoid contemporaries.
They didn't believe in Luther's Bible Only myth that you as an Atheist for some mad reason are holding tight too.

>I've heard of a rabbinical story that says Behemoth is an actual creature created on the sixth day and not a mythical metaphor. But both Behemoth and Leviathan are called the strongest creature which means both are fictional.

So what? Yer personal interpretations are meaningless. How do you know they where not metaphors? Mike yer not exactly well learned in these subjects. You couldn't even read THE GREAT DIVORCE. The point is there is no reason why Adam and Eve could not have mated with hominids and thus expand their gene pool. The offspring of these unions would have had souls and over time the human species got souls. Yer charge "this is made up" is bogus. Rather yer making stuff up to try to salvage yer garbage hybrid Protestant/Atheist argument which should be retired for the good of all Atheism and rational discussion. If only to save the rest of us sane Theists and Atheists from anachronism, question begging and non-starter arguments.

Now in the Immortal words of The Drinker "Go away now".

PS will you go learn some philosophy?

Some obscure Talmudic source out of various non-canon stuff isn't a strong defense. You'd think something that important would make it into canon scripture or Apostolic Tradition. Plus rabbinical stories are pretty random. The original version of the story you're talking about says "centaurs", not "demons" or "hominids". I've heard of a rabbinical story that says Behemoth is an actual creature created on the sixth day and not a mythical metaphor. But both Behemoth and Leviathan are called the strongest creature which means both are fictional.

Mike we didn't just make up the idea Adam & Eve might have dwell in Eden with souless humanoid "Wild Men" out of thin air(with whom they later interbred)it is in the Talmud and part of Jewish Tradition long before Scientific Evolution came on the scene. Opps! :D :P :D

Which might be a problem for some Protestants because they go by Scripture Alone but it isn't a problem for us.
Here is the really fun part. I don't have to treat this concept from the Talmud as extra Biblical divine revelation. Rather I can merely show that Bible Believing ancient Orthodox Jews had no problem believing Adam and Eve had semi-contemporaries with whom they lived with in Eden.

So it is in fact a case of "Boo Hoo! No fair! Yer not a Fundamentalist (who would dismiss this as "unBiblical" because of their unbiblical believe in Sola Scriptura)".

Them's the breaks my son. You know the drill.
ANSWERS IN GENESIS is over there. Have at them m'boi.

PS A simple literally analysis can show the phenomenological nature of the narrative as my secular religious studies professor showed be in college. Dude not he did not have Apologetics as his motivation but a simple desire to do scholarly investigation for its own sake.

So from where I am sitting yer the one just making things up to get things to fit with what you want to believe which is the Bible teaches Protestant YEC Fundamentalism.

Geez if that where true you would think there wouldn't have been so many Fathers & Rabbis who took Genesis One Symbolically?

Go away now.