RE: Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics?
June 23, 2023 at 7:16 pm
In all seriousness, though, I think that, when trying to refute the Argument from Degrees, we are arguing with a word salad. The other four of the Quinque Viae are arguments, albeit flawed ones. The Argument from Degrees is just a word salad.
Just like when arguing with Flat-Earthers. You can respond to their response to "Why do constellations shift as you move north or south?". Flat-Earthers respond with "Because the stars are only 3'100 miles up in the sky.", and that is conceivable, but wrong. You can reasonably respond to that with "Sir, if stars were only 3'100 miles up in the sky, constellations would indeed shift. But they would also change their shapes. There would be perspective distortions and, unless you assume all the stars are equally high, there would also be parallaxes.". But you cannot reasonably respond to that word-salad about optics that Flat-Earthers use to "explain" the illusion that ships appear to sink as they go over the horizon.
Just like when arguing with Flat-Earthers. You can respond to their response to "Why do constellations shift as you move north or south?". Flat-Earthers respond with "Because the stars are only 3'100 miles up in the sky.", and that is conceivable, but wrong. You can reasonably respond to that with "Sir, if stars were only 3'100 miles up in the sky, constellations would indeed shift. But they would also change their shapes. There would be perspective distortions and, unless you assume all the stars are equally high, there would also be parallaxes.". But you cannot reasonably respond to that word-salad about optics that Flat-Earthers use to "explain" the illusion that ships appear to sink as they go over the horizon.
