I go with perspective #2
I’d see it as #2.
Well, stuff like that was all over MIT and it more often indicated #1 than #2, but most of the time it was #3 or just random geekery.
When I was in college, I picked up that t-shirt and I believe that I still have it, 30 years later, although at this point it’s more air than shirt.
I bought it because I was a geeky physics (or ex-physics) major at the time, but in so much as I thought about it, it was more of a #4 – there’s no useful distinction to be made between a creator whose sole contribution was to set the ball rolling and a big bang that established a set of natural laws from which everything is derived. But I sure wasn’t making any deeper statement when wearing the t-shirt than “Beware, I’m a nerd.”
If someone can confirm that the equation is legit, I just may have to get that!
Perspective #4: This guy is a geek.
This isn’t meant to be snarky at/about the OP. I often embrace my own geekitude (I can thank the University of Chicago for that). But you have to realize that most people don’t know the physics, and therefore won’t get whether it is some kind of joke or something serious. And at least in IME, my brain sees a shirt like that and screams “GEEK!” and I never actually care what the shirt means.
FWIW, I also go for #2 as the most likely interpretation. (Even if only by force of habit, because I once was very big on G’d-Being-Great while fascinated by and appreciative of science as the way to understand the process. *Contradictory? **How so?! ***- I would have asked, impatiently.)
I wouldn’t worry about how people who assume #2 react to you. Probably any emotions expressed would be benign, and it’s unlikely that anyone will go from such an interpretation to labeling you as a preachy religious hobbyist.
(Essentially, what Eureka and Anne Neville (especially paragraphs 2&3) said. And along the lines of dangermom’s second comment.)
- “Jack”
I had one of those many years back. It fit with my beliefs that if there was a deity, its role was simply that of defining the parameters of our universe and the physical laws it follows. While also making a facetious reference to a well-known religious phrase.
And also that I was a physics major who liked showing off.
Actually not really an equation, but it is the legit definition of the Laplace Transform. If any girls ask though, I didn’t know that.
Yup. I think the OP is waaaaaaay overthinking it. I would only add to #4: " . . . and possibly wants to meet other geeks."
If I weren’t married, I’d find guys who did know that attractive.
I’m kidding of course. My girlfriend is an engineer and appreciates that about me too. I’m just not sure you and she are a representative sample. 
It wouldn’t tell me anything about you except as noted by the Imminent Dr. Silenus.
Personally I never did understand why creationists couldn’t wrap their collective heads around a God who created His universe in accordance with a set of natural laws that He Himself invented. Guess they figure burning witches is easier than reverse-engineering the magnificent creation and marvelling at its complexity.
(yes, I know it’s “eminent”)