Epicurean philosophy has been an intriguing topic for me to read on so far. I have admittedly found it a little unsettling in that I've yet to come across anything in particular I strongly disagree with or find objectionable?
On the nature of the universe:
Men need not be concerned about "gods" - supernatural beings do not exist, and any higher beings which are "perfect" are not concerned with men. Therefore it is false to believe that gods favor and reward their friends and disfavor and punish their enemies. Therefore it is foolish to ask the gods to do things for us that we can do for ourselves.
I don't really concern myself much with religion or gods/deities. My own prior conclusion has been that that any gods, if they do exist, are benign. I cannot sense their presence, and "that which lacks sensation is nothing to us."
I don't want to delve too deeply into the physics just yet, I do agree on the point that nature has no gods over her.
On the nature of knowledge:
The topic of epistemology fascinates me and there is a lot to take in on Epicurean Canonics! There are the three primary components of sensations, anticipations, and feelings, which form the basis of how we gain knowledge.
The input we get from our senses is what informs us of reality. While our sensations inform us, we can make erroneous judgements, but those judgements do not make the sensations false. (I may have later questions regarding phantom pain and the body transfer illusion).
Anticipation/prolepsis I think I get, but am unsure if I am phrasing correctly when I put into my own words. Its the accumulation of past experiences which shapes and refines our ability to interpret the outcome of future experiences.
There are ultimately two feelings, pleasure and pain, with pleasure including the absence of pain.
On the nature of how to live:
Pleasure is the guide to life, and happiness is the goal. We can choose things which are painful which will lead to greater pleasure, and we can have pleasures which outweigh unavoidable pain.