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

[Neo-Scholastic]

Degrees of perfection has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

[The Valkyrie]

Yes.

No.


Possibly.


Does it come in blue?


Why won't the whales save themselves?


I like strangling budgies.

[Anomalocaris]

on the contrary, thermodynamics tells god what perfection means.

[FlatAssembler]

Degrees of perfection has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

Thomas Aquinas was talking about properties in general, not just the property of perfection.

[polymath257]

How is the entropy going to a fixed value (usually considered to be 0) and absolute zero is approached relevant to the argument at all?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Degrees of perfection has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

Thomas Aquinas was talking about properties in general, not just the property of perfection.

No, he was talking about perfection. This is why it’s known as ‘the degrees of perfection argument’.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Thomas Aquinas was talking about properties in general, not just the property of perfection.

No, he was talking about perfection. This is why it’s known as ‘the degrees of perfection argument’.

Boru

So, he wasn't saying "If there are two things which have some property to a larger and a smaller extent, there has to be a thing which has that same property to a maximal possible degree."? I am quite sure he was saying that, he even used hotness and fire as an example.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, he was talking about perfection. This is why it’s known as ‘the degrees of perfection argument’.

Boru

So, he wasn't saying "If there are two things which have some property to a larger and a smaller extent, there has to be a thing which has that same property to a maximal possible degree."? I am quite sure he was saying that, he even used hotness and fire as an example.

Yes, that's what he was saying. If A is less hot than B and B is less hot than C and C is less hot than D, etc, eventually you'd get to a state of maximal, perfect hotness (probably Z to the nth). But he also talked about the same thing with the quality of goodness, to show that eventually, you'd reach a Thing with maximal, perfect goodness, and call this Thing 'God'.

The whole mishegas was an attempt to show that all classes of things exist in greater or lesser degrees of perfection, hence the name of the argument.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a surprisingly good argument, but only if you believed that gods would be subject to natural law.

God, as envisioned by the tradition St Tommy was cribbing and bastardizing, could indeed reach 0k...and if you think that's impossible, well, exactly! God is miracle all the way up, and all the way down. Maximally miraculous. God possesses all properties, all maximal, and possesses them all in a different way than anything else.

[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.