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

[FlatAssembler]

Thomas Aquinas is the author of some interesting philosophical ideas. Like the correspondence theory of the truth, which is, I think, the least philosophically problematic theory of the truth. But the Argument from Degrees isn't interesting per se, it seems to be a word salad. What makes it interesting is that he wasn't immediately ridiculed because of it. You know, like Anselm was ridiculed for his Ontological Argument even in his time (the Gaunilo's "perfect island" parody...).

[The Grand Nudger]

No...he's not the author of anything. He was a syncretist. His life's work was to say that his stupid god was the thing that -other- authors described.

There isn't a single, or even christian...idea...in his entire pack.

[The Valkyrie]

A far more important question:

Do pixies wear watches?

What about Pictsies?

[FlatAssembler]

[Belacqua]

I think you are giving way too much credibility to the Argument from Degrees. It's a word salad. Trying to respond to it makes as much sense as trying to contradict that word-salad about optics that Flat-Earthers use to explain the fact that ships appear to sink as they go over the horizon.

I don't agree with you that the argument is "word salad." To me, word salad is just ungrammatical nonsense, like a dadaist poem. 

It seems to me that the argument is valid, but it may not be sound. That is, if we accept the premises as true for the sake of argument, then the logical progression works. I don't know if the premises are in fact true, though, so the conclusion may well be unsound. 

What is your argument to show that the Argument from Degrees is unsound?

[FlatAssembler]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[Paleophyte]

A far more important question:

Do pixies wear watches?

What about Pictsies?

I read this as "Do pickles wear watches?" and it was still a far more important question.

[Paleophyte]

In all seriousness, though, I think that, when trying to refute the Argument from Degrees, we are arguing with a word salad.

Not exactly word salad. It was Aquinas trying to sneak god in via Platonic Ideals. The church had a long-standing hard-on for that because it played to their need for perfection. It's why they tried to have people burned for suggesting that the Earth's orbit was an ellipse. Everything in the heavens had to be perfect. It was a pretty broken notion two millennia before Aquinas plagiarized it and adding god didn't do it any favours. So less word salad than the bastard love child of bad philosophy and organized superstition.

[polymath257]

A far more important question:

Do pixies wear watches?

What about Pictsies?

Do fairies wear boots?