So - Picking this back up where we left off...
While it's completely fine to add another religion to the OA setting - you can't swing a catsplice in some parts of the OA setting without hitting three different religions in the process - I would advise against actually getting into the mathematics of Existence as part of adding that religion to the setting or the like. Main reason being that - unless you actually have the math background to be able to demonstrate in real world terms that your math is correct and correctly describes the universe we live in - in a debate with people who can (and sometime do) fill up multiple whiteboards or pages with equations - this seems likely to end less than well.
I don't know your background and maybe you do work with math and physics as the level of peer reviewed journals and such. But some of our members (past, present, and future) do and - if they disagree with your assertions and math and have the physics and math know-how to argue their case and you don't - it seems likely to result in upset members (possibly including yourself) and placing OA in the awkward position of having to decide either whether or not to include your math in the setting or whether or not to remove it if we have added it previously. There is also the occasionally annoying issue we've had to deal with in the past in which a member creates a controversial (in some fashion or other) EG article and then moves on to other things, leaving us in the position of defending something isn't particularly defensible (or something we want to defend).
All of which leads me back to my original assertion - I think adding a new religion to the setting is fine. But probably better to leave the math out of it.
My 2c worth,
Todd
While it's completely fine to add another religion to the OA setting - you can't swing a catsplice in some parts of the OA setting without hitting three different religions in the process - I would advise against actually getting into the mathematics of Existence as part of adding that religion to the setting or the like. Main reason being that - unless you actually have the math background to be able to demonstrate in real world terms that your math is correct and correctly describes the universe we live in - in a debate with people who can (and sometime do) fill up multiple whiteboards or pages with equations - this seems likely to end less than well.
I don't know your background and maybe you do work with math and physics as the level of peer reviewed journals and such. But some of our members (past, present, and future) do and - if they disagree with your assertions and math and have the physics and math know-how to argue their case and you don't - it seems likely to result in upset members (possibly including yourself) and placing OA in the awkward position of having to decide either whether or not to include your math in the setting or whether or not to remove it if we have added it previously. There is also the occasionally annoying issue we've had to deal with in the past in which a member creates a controversial (in some fashion or other) EG article and then moves on to other things, leaving us in the position of defending something isn't particularly defensible (or something we want to defend).
All of which leads me back to my original assertion - I think adding a new religion to the setting is fine. But probably better to leave the math out of it.
My 2c worth,
Todd