Oscar, the idea of creators is not c/w "nothing comes from nothing", because then the creators would have come from nothing.

If the creators were themselves material, then they did not create the particles they came from. They could not create themselves, because they'd have to have existed before material reality-- and that's supernatural. You would then have to explain how those particles came about.

You could imagine that they created other things and beings, but where did they get the raw material? They could not create it from nothing. Humans can move dirt around and even clone animals or do genetic engineering-- we create in many senses, but we do not create anything from nothing.

So there is no possible way for material beings to have created the universe from scratch.

The other option is supernatural. So then you have non material gods producing matter from nothing, which violates the nothing comes from nothing observation. And how would a nonmaterial being interact with matter? What's the interface, which would have to be present to both non-material and material beings? Woowoo folks say energy, but energy is part of the material universe. It's material. Then you'd have to loop around to the beginning and say where did the energy come from? The gods could not have created energy from nothing either!

The creator idea is one of the easiest to remove if you agree that matter/energy can't come from nothing.

Which means if you believe the universe had creators, you do not accept that nothing comes from nothing.

I am not like Cassius on this point, in that I do think there are beliefs that make a person not Epicurean. If we obtained firm evidence that something can come from nothing, which requires supernatural/non material action, I think that would unravel his philosophy. It would mean there is a whole non material realm which not only exists but which can create and mess with matter. It would mean we can't know there's no absolute perspective or ethics, because supernatural beings, as outside the material universe, could have a view of the whole from the outside that we can never have. I feel confident in saying that is not Epicurean.

These are the inevitable implications of nothing comes from nothing. I encourage you to become firm on that point, because if you don't, you are faced with supernaturalism.

Quote from Oscar

Now, do I think a personal God(s) exists? No. Do I think there's an afterlife judgment awaiting us all? No. My point of contention with the Atheists rests on my belief that nothing comes from nothing - one of the central and fundamental Epicurean doctrines about the nature of the universe. Another issue is that I derive happiness from thinking about the creator(s) of the universe; as Epicurus intended for us. Others may not and that's okay, I've no issue with that - to each their own.

this is the idealist view, except that the Epicurean gods were not creators, they were created by nature.

So if the realist and idealist positions do not exist outside of this forum, I guess my question is what do you make of all the sources cited in the Epicureanism piece on Wikipedia, for instance?

----

The manner in which the Epicurean gods exist is still disputed. Some scholars say that Epicureanism believes that the gods exist outside the mind as material objects (the realist position), while others assert that the gods only exist in our minds as ideals (the idealist position).^[36][37][38] The realist position holds that Epicureans understand the gods as existing as physical and immortal beings made of atoms that reside somewhere in reality.^[36][38] However, the gods are completely separate from the rest of reality; they are uninterested in it, play no role in it, and remain completely undisturbed by it.^[39] Instead, the gods live in what is called the metakosmia, or the space between worlds.^[40] Contrarily, the idealist position holds that Epicurus did not actually conceive of the gods as existing in reality. Rather, Epicurus is said to have viewed the gods as just idealized forms of the best human life,^[37][41] and it is thought that the gods were emblematic of the life one should aspire towards.^[37] The debate between these two positions was revived by A. A. Long and David Sedley in their 1987 book, The Hellenistic Philosophers, in which the two argued in favor of the idealist position.^[37][38] While a scholarly consensus has yet to be reached, the realist position remains the prevailing viewpoint at this time.^[37][38]

(and here are sources for notes 36 through 41:)

• ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c} O'Keefe, Tim (2010). Epicureanism. University of California Press. pp. 155–156.
• ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c d e} Sedley, David (2011). "Epicurus' theological innatism". In Fish, Jeffrey; Sanders, Kirk R. (eds.). Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 29–30.
• ^ Jump up to: ^{a b c d} Konstan, David (2011). "Epicurus on the gods". In Fish, Jeffrey; Sanders, Kirk R. (eds.). Epicurus and the Epicurean Tradition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 53–54.
• ^ Mansfeld, Jaap (1993). "Aspects of Epicurean Theology". Mnemosyne. 46 (2): 176–178.
• ^ Buchheit, Vinzenz (2007). "Epicurus' Triumph of the Mind". In Gale, Monica R. (ed.). Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 110–111.
• ^ O'Keefe, Tim (2010). Epicureanism. University of California Press. pp. 158–159.

Oscar, I am confused about your creator gods. The universe means "everything that exists"--- all the matter and energy. I'm glad you are not saying they are supernatural, but how can you say they are creators if they didn't bring any matter into existence that wasn't there before? When someone says gods created the universe, I don't think I'm being strange to understand that as it is usually meant.

Is is more like you see them as re-arrangers of matter that was already here-- creative like artists?

As far as the Big Bang, I am not a physicist but I thought there was still something preceding it-- some point of energy that expanded. Not a god sized hole though.

Quote from Cassius

If someone is so tightly wound that they can't laugh at a joke like that, then they might claim to belong to a super-fundamentalist Epicurean sect!

lol Humor is the name of the game for me. If the poets of antiquity were melancholic, my poetry is humor. This is why I tell my friends to eat cheese instead of saying cheese when they ask my to take a picture on them.

Oscar, I am going to request a favor. It is very hard to converse if you introduce unconventional definitions into a discussion. The rest of us were having a conversation about something specific, Epicurus' description of gods, and our takes on that. You commented that you were not an atheist and got pleasure from thinking about the creators of the universe, plural, which does not imply nature. Lucretius personifies nature, but it's a poetic device-- nature is not conscious or a being. Epicurus' gods were actual beings, conscious.

And now you say you are using nature interchangeably with creators and gods, which the rest of us were discussing as possible conscious beings or not ("not" being the atheist position even towards material blissful beings).

If nature, not a being, not conscious, is interchangeable for you with creators and gods as material blissful beings, then how is this not using a metaphor to say you are atheist towards material blissful beings? If non being equals being, how can any of us understand you or respond?

Please try harder to communicate clearly, so the rest of us can understand you. Thank you!

Oscar hello ! Sorry, but you're wrong to call gods as creators. Gods are not creators, since they are created by the nature of mankind who in difficult and painful situations want something as an imitation/prototype for the purpose to be strengthened. Metaphorically this imitation sometimes is a kind of a life jacket when you see life as a vast ocean with huge waves that coming against you to drown you inside its abyss. But as Nietzsche said, it is not wise to look at the abyss, because you'll become the abyss yourself.

But anyway, except for food and drink, mankind wanted and still wants a kind of mental inspiration that is a kind of energy/power to overcome the feeling of insecurity, in other words, a feeling that humans are so tiny in front of the phenomena of Nature. Mankind felt and still feels "shock and awe" in front of the phenomena of Nature and this feeling of insecure is overcoming when we see that we belong into something that is producing in us feelings of security. That "belonging" is called "society" that includes ourselves and other similar to ourselves that is our family and then our friends and the known to our friends etc. A society's cohesion is based on social contracts with laws, customs, language, religion etc i.e. same historical past, present, and a visualization of the future experiences and with these common experiences we are united with others to overcome any painful situation.

The sadness and melancholy in front of the fact that one day definitely and irrevocably we will perish into the big Nothingness provoked and still provokes feelings of melancholy and depression to us the humans. And this is our difference from other beings/animals that as we know already, they did and still do not create images/idols of gods, since they have not the same consciousness and sense perception with us that one day they will die for going into that "Never again". This is our difference from other beings that can't visualize/imagine themselves into the future. To live and visualize yourself as a god living in a society of men that everyone has the power living as such, it is what Epicurus and epicureans proclaim with the whole of our philosophy, and imo this is our visualization as intuitive future pleasures that came from past, and present pleasurable experiences.

However, some would say this is idealism and utopia (i.e no place) for living like a god among men and no one and anything to interrupt your friendships for living pleasantly. No, I respond to them this is called "eutopia" (i.e. good place). And this "eutopia" is given in the ending paragraph of Diogenis of Oinoanda's inscription, and reveals the power of "swerve". Some would say that it is inconceivable for mankind to live as Homo-deus on this planet... humankind is going to extinct. No, I would respond to those "pessimistic personalities", the inconceivable remains as such when nobody and no one conceives/says/proclaims to the others an idea, as a probability that is pleasurable indeed, that in the future could become as another "reality". There are many pessimistic personalities who the only thing that they try to do is to maintain/preserve a "stable present reality" that has no fields of energy that is the power of motion that creates/changes all the things. Their "stable present reality" has only frames that those frames include "stable pictures" without motion. Many times, we see, that this "present reality" is maintained as such with laws that are harmful for the majority of people. There is a greek idiom that old people here say : "we found all things as such, and as such we should have to maintain them for ever and ever". These forces are the forces of convenience and apathy with such people that do not want to change anything around, since they are afraid the changing itself. But it is obvious that things by Nature are changing without end.

Thus, Epicurus and epicureans are the artists of life who were the first that conceived and with their mind/wise thoughts and with their experiences/actions the conceivable which is the Art to live like gods among men in any society/environment. And that is because Epicureans are the adaptable since they have sharp senses and feelings for observing and explaining the phenomena of Nature in any environment, and through the methodology of the Canon, are doing their measurements to change whatever is against our goal that is PLEASURE.