• If the existence of karma is assumed, the proposition of God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary.
For, if God enforces the consequences of actions then he can do so without karma. If however, he is assumed to be within the law of karma, then karma itself would be the giver of consequences and there would be no need of a God.
• Even if karma is denied, God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences. Because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or altruistic.
Now, God’s motives cannot be assumed to be altruistic because an altruistic God would not create a world so full of suffering.
If his motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have desire, as agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire.
However, assuming that God has desire would contradict God’s eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in actions. Moreover, desire, according to Sāṃkhya, is an attribute of Prakṛti and cannot be thought to grow in God. The testimony of the Veda, according to Sāṃkhya, also confirms this notion.
• Despite arguments to the contrary, if God is still assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause him to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better than the Sāṃkhya notion of higher self.
• Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of God. He is not the object of perception, there exists no general proposition that can prove him by inference and the testimony of the Veda speak of Prakṛti as the origin of the world, not God.
Extracted from Wikipedia article on Sāṃkhya