>>52
Sorry, yes the pseudo double negative is confusing. Rephrasing the sentence;
"The mathematician sees that there is no evidence of any solution existing, but does not simply assume there are none and forget about it."
As for the "god" thing... to be fair, I'm hardly even talking about god. Certainly not the god of any religion. I'm not talking about a god that can excuse things using miracles, or can defy any law at will, thus rendering science inept. I'm talking about whether or not the initial stimulus to the universe was a sentient being. The Big Bang in itself is not a satisfactory answer, and I'm not satisfied in blindly believing that science will provide an ultimate answer at some point. It is an open question in my head. The universe may or may not have been stimulated by a sentient being. It is simply arrogance and speculation to state that you are certain that it wasn't, given the (lack of) evidence available.
In fact, there is a philosophical idea that we may be significantly more likely to exist in a virtual universe (that is, one created by outside sentient beings) than in a "real" one. This would come from the speculation that if a civilisation reaches a certain peak in technical capabilities, it may desire and implement the creation of a virtual universe, in which the exact same thing happens, and so on. This might be limited by the quantization of fundamental forces/particles, I'm not entirely sure. But if it is possible, that outside sentience is pretty much omnipotent, and fits a lot of the criteria for being a "god" to this universe.