If karma is assumed, then God as a moral governor of the universe is unnecessary, because God is able to enforce the consequences of actions without karma.
If however, God 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.
If karma is denied, then God still cannot be the enforcer of consequences, because the motives of an enforcer God would be either egoistic or altruistic. If God’s motives are assumed to be altruistic, then a world full of struggle and suffering would not have been created. If then, God’s motives are assumed to be egoistic, then God must be thought to have desire, for agency or authority cannot be established in the absence of desire. However, if one assumes that God has desire, this would contradict God’s eternal freedom which necessitates no compulsion in actions.
If God is assumed to contain unfulfilled desires, this would cause God to suffer pain and other similar human experiences. Such a worldly God would be no better than one’s own Higher Self. And in that there is no proof of the existence of God – not being an object of perception – there exists no proposition that can prove him by inference, then Nature, the Primal Motive Force, is the basis of the activity of creation.
To ease the troubled mind: Nature, the Primal Motive Force, may be perceived as feminine, a Goddess. While the Self, the Spirit, the Universal Principle, may be perceived as male, a God.