Originally posted by ivanhoe
At the moment there are a number of discussions on the Forums going on that deal with Ethics, Natural Law, Divine Law, Civil Law etc.
Debators who are interested in these issues could be interested in the works of George Ellis Ph.D, winn ...[text shortened]... nt day science.
that isnt his field. , so maybe since he's a physicists and that's a philosophical idea he ought not accept the prize on grounds that his scientific acheivements are in the exact field he specifies as an invalid discipline to determine such matters.
The judges consider a nominee's contribution to progress made either during the year prior to his selection or during his or her entire career. The qualities sought in awarding the Prize are: freshness, creativity, innovation and effectiveness. Such contributions may involve new concepts of divinity, new organizations, new and effective ways of communicating God's wisdom and infinite love, creation of new schools of thought, creation of new structures of understanding the relationship of the Creator to his ongoing creation of the universe, to the physical sciences, and the life sciences, and the human sciences, the releasing of new and vital impulses into old religious structures and forms.
Now on the other hand if he would uses mathematics to work out a field theory and normalizes his claim , he might be deserving of the Nobel Prize,,,, just don't hold your breath waiting.
my opening statement is amplified by the fact that of freshness, creativity, innovation and effectiveness only the last might apply but thats only because of his reputation as a physicist.