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

The answers the OP look for about his statement :

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.  

The answer about this is complex but completely described in this video by one of the greatest mathematician  always living , and i cannot resume this answer in a few words :

Alain Connes , "the music of shapes" conference ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52ZAPrRbqE&t=522s

Master Eckhardt takes his idea from his own experience of the Source but also was inspired by Dyonisos the Areopagite , the greatest of all mystic in the christian church, for catholics as for Orthodox... he lives in the sixth century...

He is so deep that Georg Cantor takes all his ideas and method about infinities hierarchical relations from him , from his three methods : silent contemplation in non discursive intuitive consciousness, apophantic and cataphatic discursive methods...Nicolas the Cues the mathemathical genius in the 15 century takes also his ideas from Dyonysos and gives after Archimedes the first description of actual infinity..

Without this mystic , i doubt that Cantor who taught also theology and was a mystic too, would have been able to create transfinite set theory... You can read Michael Hallett " Set theory and the principle of limitation of size" to verify it if you study Dyonisos too ...

Then question : How in the world could a mystic be at the origin of the ONLY mathematical modern foundation of the most fundamental of science ?

The only contender of set theory as a foundation was created by another mystic who wrote a one thousand pages book about his dialogue with God in his dreams , in french "la clef des songes".. I read it...Alexander Grothendieck is the genius who created modern algebraic geometry ALONE ... he is the master of Alain Connes among many other genius and also the master of Shinichi Mochizuki the controversial genius from Japan ...

The OP evidently means to invoke the “anthropic principle” when he mentions the “fine tuned universe argument.” Many believers in God appeal to this principle, as it seems to support the “argument from design,” perhaps the most intuitively appealing of any of the arguments for the existence of God. However, this involves a misunderstanding. The anthropic principle only states the tautological truism that, were it not for us as observers, the observed features of the universe would not be. That is, the construal of this principle as support for some kind of Supreme Designer gets the causality backward. The principle is just an extension of Kant’s fundamental insight: that “reality” is necessarily relative to the observer who experiences, and so defines, it. Space and time are not independently real, they are features of the observer; thus, all the spatio-temporal features of the universe determined by physics—our physics—are extrapolations of features of our own minds. This is NOT to say that the very existence of some unknowable reality depends on us. But the knowability of that, or any, reality does, tautologically, depend on the knower (and the cognitive and bodily structures of the knower).

 

For what it’s worth, it seems to me the wisest thing to “say” about God is what Meister Eckhart—a 13^th century German Catholic (Dominican) mystical theologian—wrote: “Now notice this. God is nameless, for no one can know or articulate anything about God. A pagan teacher [Aristotle] speaks to this point in saying that what we can know or express about the First Cause is more than anything else what we are than anything that the First Cause is or might be, for it is beyond all human expression and understanding. If I were to say that God is good, I would be wrong; it is more correct to say that I am good and God is not good…. And because God cannot become better he cannot become best, for all three of these terms—good, better, and best—are far from God’s reality…. If I go on to say that God is wise, it is not true—I am wiser than God. If I further say that God is a being [that he exists], that is not true. God is a being beyond being and a nothingness beyond being…. So be silent and do not flap your gums about God, for to the extent that you flap your gums about God, you lie and you commit sin.”

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.  

Just remember,  the same god who gave us music gave us the bomb.

@mahgister 

I had them sorted by increasing commitment and fervour. You are obviously free to use your own criteria.

Any attempt to prove the existence of a however fashioned higher order requires belief rather than science, hence my answer was meant to highlight the private nature of belief as a socially insufficient basis for political decisions. Hence my comments about the Constitution‘s outlook on the issue.