Are We All Just Mathematical Possibilities?

Are We All Just Mathematical Possibilities?.
Are we even real?
Is it possible that we are just mathematical possibilities in the Universe. And that we are just possibilities that really have not happened?

Are We All Just Mathematical Possibilities?.
Are we even real?
Is it possible that we are just mathematical possibilities in the Universe. And that we are just possibilities that really have not happened?

The problem is that the mathematical probability that we are just a possibility in the universe is too slim to be a random occurrence, and therefore it becomes more logical to assume that there was a deity who dictated this. Sure, this seems intangible that there is someone or something more powerful than humans, but, it removes the need to question life as an entirety and its origin.

I disagree.

A deity which created the universe and dictated this possibility would have to be even more complicated than the universe itself.

Therefore it's less likely the deity dictated this

I completely get that, but I think that this perspective comes from using human laws to dictate what a deity can or can't do. If we accept the fact that a deity is all-powerful and above human comprehension, then the complexity of things shouldn't be surprising or dismissable as to what a deity could do. In fact, it should be more surprising that under human laws the universe is such an improbable phenomenon, yet it makes itself out to have things that make sense and can be justified in one way or another - simple ideas such as the conservation of energy.

If there was a deity, and that's the key point. It's plausible, and you can argue assuming there was a deity it would be less surprising. But considering my argument, it's less likely a deity exists than not

But my premise is supported, and the conclusion is supported by Occam's Razor.

May I ask to get a better understanding; What would make there not being a deity the simpler solution?

Check out the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit.

If the theist uses this argument to explain God, the theist must account for God's existence and how that God was created. Therefore the logic is self-defeating. If very complex life on Earth is the equivalent of implausible junkyard Boeing 747 (created out of a tornado storm), a highly complex god is the "ultimate Boeing 747" (according to Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author) that requires seemingly impossible things to explain its existence.
Tl;dr to use God to explain something highly complex, you'd need something even more complex (God) to explain it.
A similar argument can be used, but in the universe. Using Occam's Razor (if two theories explain the same amount, the simpler theory with less unknowns/variables is preferable to the theory with more unknowns/variables)... we can conclude the simpler solution is not being a deity.