Article: "Extraterrestrial Life May Look Nothing Like Life On Earth..." (and for our purposes, applying the article to "gods")

Quote from Cassius

... And that's exactly what I mean too when I say "the universe is all that exists." Any kind of terminology such as world systems or multiverses or anything else falls within "the universe is all that exists. " If it exists anywhere using any adjective, it's part of the "universe."

Oh, I completely agree that "the universe is all that exists" just to be clear. The only complication on that is possibly a differing view on what we mean by "world" and "universe." To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi. The planets were find orbiting other stars are part of our cosmos. If we want other cosmoi, we have to accept the multiverse, ie, other universes. All the universes together in modern cosmology make up The Universe, THE All. If one is trying to map Epicurean cosmology onto a modern paradigm, I contend that that's the only way to do it.

That doesn't in any way go against Epicurus' primary tenet that we live in a natural, material universe.

Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.

Quote from Cassius

I'll likely never accept that in philosophical discussion there is a necessity of mapping into modern paradigms that are regularly changing and within which the experts don't even agree among themselves. I'll let those who want to try do to that pursue that, and I do understand that some want to do that.

Quote from Bryan

Cosmos connects well with a galaxy, To Pan with the universe. If we want other cosmoi, I'd think we only have to accept multiple galaxies. As we know, Epíkouros uses Cosmos in the plural, but not To Pan.

Quote from Don

To be clear about my perspective: when Epicurus says κόσμος cosmos "world" I think the evidence is that he means a planet (Earth) and all its accompanying sky and stars. Another "world" or κόσμος is this same system elsewhere. The universe, Το Παν (To Pan) "The All" is the entirety of existence that contains ALL these cosmoi.

Honestly, I think that trying to map ΚΟΣΜΟΣ "kosmos", ΚΟΣΜΟΙ "kosmoi", and ΤΟ ΠΑΝ "The All" onto modern concepts, especially concepts and theories that are evolving, is a fool's errand. Epicurus' conceptions of kosmoi and The All were fundamentally different than our own. My understanding is that kosmoi were islands of order in The All. Kosmos literally means "order" (actually related to English cosmetic, bringing order to one's face or appearance). Our word "planet" to the Greeks was simply a wandering star, πλανήτης, against the fixed stars in the sky. Epicurus didn't speak of beings on another πλανήτης but beings in/on/inhabiting other κόσμοι. Earth, to him as best I can ascertain, was where we lived in our κόσμος.

That's why discussions like this about theology or cosmology are often talking past each other. When the ancients were talking about an intermundia "between worlds" or ΜΕΤΑΚΟΣΜΟΣ they didn't imagine planets or worlds or galaxies or multiverses. They had their ideas, . We have our ideas, informed by science and observation. I need to accept that Epicurus and the ancient Greek cosmological concepts have no necessity to equate with my modern ideas. They may overlap slightly, but they cannot be made to synchronize.

Quote from Cassius

We all end at the same point - I think - that whatever is the truth, the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it. So frequently the details are not necessarily important to reconcile, UNLESS they point to a major conclusion about the supernatural or life after death or something that would call into question whether the truth is natural or supernatural, or would call into question key issues about the "knowability" of any truth at all. Definitely when anything like that arises it does need to be made to synchronize at least at the conclusion level.

We basically agree. I would reword your initial sentence as: The truth is that the universe is "natural" and doesn't have a supernatural overlay above it.

Anything that contradicts that, much like seeing Alexander the Oracle Monger's snake, we should be one "whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by scepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility."

From the Letter to Phytocles (just as a textual addendum to the parts of this discussion that reflects on modern science, and uncertainties in our knowledge of the natural world – as we all agree on “no supernature”

“[86] We must not try to force an impossible explanation, nor employ a method of inquiry like our reasoning either about the modes of life or with respect to the solution of other physical problems: witness such propositions as that ‘the universe consists of bodies and the intangible,’ or that ‘the elements are indivisible,' and all such statements in circumstances where there is only one explanation which harmonizes with phenomena. For this is not so with the things above us: they admit of more than one cause of coming into being and more than one account of their nature which harmonizes with our sensations.

“[87] For we must not conduct scientific investigation by means of empty assumptions and arbitrary principles, but follow the lead of phenomena: for our life has not now any place for irrational belief and groundless imaginings, but we must live free from trouble.

“Now all goes on without disturbance as far as regards each of those things which may be explained in several ways so as to harmonize with what we perceive, when one admits, as we are bound to do, probable theories about them. But when one accepts one theory and rejects another which harmonizes as well with the phenomenon, it is obvious that he altogether leaves the path of scientific inquiry and has recourse to myth. Now we can obtain indications of what happens above from some of the phenomena on earth: for we can observe how they come to pass, though we cannot observe the phenomena in the sky: for they may be produced in several ways.” EF version, based on Bailey; my emphases.

I just found that "niggling" in the back of my mind as I read through the thread. It really is, it seems to me, an early paean to empiricism -- and keeping open-minded about plausible hypotheses and theories that might fit the known facts (have not been falsified), with whatever uncertainty that might entail.