Learning about crossovers helped convert me from atheist to a believer in God

Hickamore, thank you for taking my OP seriously enough to respond to it in kind.  I appreciate that.  Your point seems to be that matter and energy exist, therefore, how surprising is it that we find harmony in the mathematics (for example) that we use to understand this existence.  My response is that you are starting at the endpoint, that matter and energy exist,  That appears to be just as much a religious statement as is the suggestion of a creator.  BTW, I think you will find that the idea of multiple universes is not a dismissed straw man, as you say, but it is currently an active theory which is offered to explain the “finely tuned universe” argument, which is based on the idea that many of the physical constants of the universe, [e.g. gravitational constant, Planck constant, elementary charge], have very little wiggle room in their range for life to exist.  

zasouswing, I also thank you for addressing my post directly.  Your point seems to be that it’s not surprising that we find harmony and beauty in the way, for example that the capacitor and the inductor seem to mirror each other so perfectly because we set up the measuring system to achieve that exact result.  While I agree that we set up a very clean measurement system (metric and physics), I don’t see how that explains, for example, that an inductor’s low-pass cutoff frequency rolloff has the exact same slope as as that of a capacitor’s high-pass at the opposite end, using a different mechanism of operation, and using no common parts.  It just seems too good to be true.  But I could be wrong.  

Sniff, thank you also for addressing my post directly.  Sadly I’m not smart enough to understand your major point.  Perhaps you could re-phrase it in simpler language.  I don’t understand what the misunderstanding you refer to is, and how this means that the finely tuned universe argument gets the causality backwards.  

One innovation, from the history of religion, that Western (Judeo-Christian) religion offered was the compound idea that a) the universe is intelligible, b) that humans are equipped to understand it, and c) that it is good to pursue this understanding.  On that basis the Scientific Revolution happened in the West.  Math and physics were developed, not as human confections, but as the byproduct of observation and experimentation.  So, while I understand that one sees what one looks for, that to a hammer everything is a nail, etc., to then extrapolate that physics, as it stands, is a human language that shapes and distorts our observations of reality may be true but it isn’t really useful.  It’s all we have to make sense of the physical world.  

These discussions have titles.  The purpose of these titles, in part, is to guide you in selecting which discussions you should invest in.  When you see a title that promises to be tedious, but you then decide to read through it anyway, confirm that it was, in fact, tedious, and then post to the participants no contribution other than your finding that you found it tedious, that seems like a very ineffective use of time.