Let x be whatever you want.
I want to know whether or not x is the solution.
If x has been discovered to rectify the past, reverse entropy, and eliminate death, then my knowledge of x and how to act in relation to knowing that x is the solution, may imply that x could extend my existence indefinitely in a universe where only the good would thereafter be renderable in a progressive, even exponential, synthesis of the feeling of well-being.
To claim that there is no solution assumes a single solution---mere denial, because it resolutely pertains to the problem, a substitute solubility functioning as a heuristic.
Usually with the insinuation that it should not be discussed any more. But that's another story.
The discussion of this possibility is based on a set of assumptions that are necessary to think thoughts and make statements---even statements about those statements themselves.
To talk about whether universally and exceptionlessly true statements are possible already assumes a set of ultimate thoughts to be universally and exceptionlessly true rules about how we must or ought to think about universals, obligations that the mind 'must' or 'ought' or 'should' refer to and depend on as one shows or even states the denial of universals.
Sorry, no free ride for the casually dismissive. The tell-tale heart arbitrarily balks here, and will not go another logical step beyond this point.
Unfortunately, it has all those mere claims just bandied about as somehow saving one from something. They either stand by themselves in some kind of anti-intellectual posturing, or else retreat into the same kinds of justifications it rejected in all arguments to the contrary.
Now that you're rid of God, welcome to the mind god that just won't go away.