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

[FlatAssembler]

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.

[awty]

Not sure why this is under 'Atheism' but I honestly don't know where to put it.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

‘Maximally cold’ doesn’t mean 0 Kelvins. It means as cold as something can get.

You ask a lot of silly questions, for which I sincerely thank you.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

Not sure why this is under 'Atheism' but I honestly don't know where to put it.

Need a section for A-brainism.

[FlatAssembler]

Not sure why this is under 'Atheism' but I honestly don't know where to put it.

Countering the Aquinas'es arguments for the existence of God belongs to "atheism", doesn't it?

[FlatAssembler]

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.

‘Maximally cold’ doesn’t mean 0 Kelvins. It means as cold as something can get.

You ask a lot of silly questions, for which I sincerely thank you.

Boru

So, is there a thing which is as cold as it can get?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘Maximally cold’ doesn’t mean 0 Kelvins. It means as cold as something can get.

You ask a lot of silly questions, for which I sincerely thank you.

Boru

So, is there a thing which is as cold as it can get?

Of course there is. Anything will get as cold as it can get.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

well,  there is no doubt a coldest thing in the universe at any given time.   that would be the coldest you can get at this time in the history of the universe.   there is some chance that coldest thing is inside a physics laboratory on earth.

so St Aquinaus should god is that physics laboratory on earth, not a bearded man in the sky.

[FlatAssembler]

So, is there a thing which is as cold as it can get?

Of course there is. Anything will get as cold as it can get.

Boru

You mean, at the heat death of the universe? But things that will exist at the time of the heat death of the universe are not eternal or aevum, they will not have existed forever. They do not exist yet, for example. Thomas Aquinas is claiming God has to exist now, not that he will exist some distant time in the future.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course there is. Anything will get as cold as it can get.

Boru

You mean, at the heat death of the universe? But things that will exist at the time of the heat death of the universe are not eternal or aevum, they will not have existed forever. They do not exist yet, for example. Thomas Aquinas is claiming God has to exist now, not that he will exist some distant time in the future.

No, I don’t mean at the heat death of the universe. There are sets of conditions in the here-and-now when anything will reach a point at which it can get no colder. An object doesn’t have to be at 0 kelvins to be maximally cold.

Boru