Epicurus and randomness - No providence - God is denied.

In MN 3:17, as an introduction to his opinion on Providence, Rambam lists five approaches. I will post each one separately and discuss them as they relate to different currents in Judaism.

The first opinion is the easiest one to deal with as it is foreign to Judaism. It is the theory proposed by the Atomists[1] who did not accept the existence of a First Cause. Everything to them was a result of random recombination of atoms without any underlying plan or rationality.

“There is no Providence at all for anything in the Universe; all parts of the Universe, the heavens and what they contain, owe their origin to accident and chance; there exists no being that rules and governs them or provides for them. This is the theory of Epicurus, who assumes also that the Universe consists of atoms, that these have combined by chance, and have received their various forms by mere accident. There have been atheists among the Israelites who have expressed the same view; it is reported of them: "They have denied the Lord, and said he is not" (Yirmyahu 5:12). Aristotle has proved the absurdity of the theory that the whole Universe could have originated by chance; he has shown that, on the contrary, there is a being that rules and governs the Universe. We have already touched upon this subject in the present treatise.”

Rambam is so convinced of the irrefutability of his proof for the existence of a First Cause that he does not even bother refuting this theory. As you know from my previous posts I am of the same opinion. So far none of the counter arguments have been convincing to me.

An interesting aside and a question that I really do not have an answer to: In his Pirush Hamishna on Sanhedrin 10:2 Rambam comments on the word Epicurus mentioned in the Mishna. He says it is an Aramaic word meaning a lack of respect for authority. Rambam clearly knew Epicurus as he mentions him in the above quote. Did he think that the Rabbis of the Mishna did not know him? I would doubt that very much. I would also doubt that he did not know about him in his twenties, when he wrote his commentary on Mishna discovering him only later. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Footnote:
[1] The ancient theory of Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius, according to which simple, minute, indivisible, and indestructible particles are the basic components of the entire universe. ( http://www.answers.com/atomism?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3 )