Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?

[Cog]

In one of my YouTube videos, I claimed that the basic premise of the Thomas Aquinas'es Argument from Degrees is contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics. The basic premise of the Argument from Degrees is that if there are two things that have some property to a higher and a lesser degree, there has to be a thing that has that same property to a maximal possible degree. Really? Let's say that property is coldness. There are some things that are more cold than others. So, according to the Argument from Degrees, there should be a maximally cold thing. But we know by the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics that there isn't, 0 Kelvins cannot be reached.

I asked this question on Philosophy StackExchange as well.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think this is important. The Argument from Degrees is so obviously silly that I don't think it will convince anybody. The non-existence of crocoduck argument or the argument from near-death experiences has a much better chance of catching on than the Argument from Degrees does.

Am I missing the obvious?  You didn't make an argument.  You said, "The basic argument from degrees is that f there are two things that have some property to a higher and a lesser degree, there has to be a thing that has the same property to a maximal possible degree.   Ummm?  So what?   Are you asserting 'God' is a thing?  Do you have any evidence for the claim?  I am not at all sure where you are going with this and I have no desire to go and read Thomas Aquinas myself. Perhaps a little clarity would help.