my view about god in background of sankhya darshan

denial of god:

sankhya darshan is one of the most complicated philosophies as in the way it accepts vedas as  evidence ( pramaan ) but deny existence of god ( ishwara ). some of the arguments which sankhya gives regarding this can be summarized as follows: ( from wiki )

• 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 Samkhya, is an attribute of prakriti and cannot be thought to grow in God. The testimony of the Vedas, according to Samkhya, 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 Samkhya's 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 Vedas speak of prakriti as the origin of the world, not God.

origin of universe:

now what sankhya actually says about universe? there is purush and prakriti, both of which has no cause hence are eternal. purush is consciousness, eternal, pure, independent, unknowable. prakriti is first cause of universe composed of three characteristics ( satva, raj, tam ). but purush is completely free from any characteristics or gunas. prakriti is considered as dead, means can't work on it's own but depends on purusha the pure consciousness that make it work but do not accept them in itself. by disequillibrium in three characteristics the intellect or mahatatva is born out of which ego sense , ahankara is born. ahankara further by influence of three characteristics is of three types, vaikaarik ( satva influence ), taijas ( raja influence ) , taamasik ( tama influence ). from vaikaarik ahankara devtas are born, from taijas, mind, 5 sense organs and 5 organs of action are born, and from taamsik , 5 elements ( prithvi, agni, jal, vaayu, aakasha ) are born.
so, as a whole, what sankhya really has to say is the whole universe is nothing but in intellect ( mahatatva ) that means a perception of mind. though it do not say it clearly, but as far as i assume, it can have only meaning that universe is illusion and just like measurement problem in quantum mechanics. universe cannot be described until we measure it, and that measurement has to be done in mahatatva , the intellect. so, the process of origin of universe is not in line of time. it happens all time, everywhere. and from that mahatatva, self recognition, ahankara is born. body or person identifies something as itself and thus work.

is prakriti not god?

prakriti is considered as creator of universe in sankhya darshan. as whole universe is manifestation of those three characteristics. then question arise isn't prakriti god? no, because prakriti do not take decisions, like free will. prakriti is dead and dependent. it's more like rule. like the basic force in universe is considered as gravitational force and all other forces come into play by virtue of it, in same way the three gunas create the whole universe. by the rule world is operated. 

purpose of creation?

there cannot be a specific purpose of creation. as prakriti do not create universe for itself. but purush does ahankara in that universe and enjoys it. if it is said that it created it for worship, then worship whom? there is nothing but purush  portraying itself in multiple form because of prakriti. then who will worship whom? if it is said it created for salvation that's also not possible. because salvation is just opposite of creation. if we look at it scientifically, i mostly believe in multiverse theory. there are many universe working in parallel. somewhere big bang just occurred, somewhere universe ended. just like birth and death of  stars in one universe. but one universe is just one possibility out of many possibilities for some event which our mind measures and perceive and think to be real. in such a state where life can have endless possibilities, one cannot say he has one purpose and he fulfill it. on atomic level we see one electron exists both as matter and wave. that means it can be at many places at same time. so, how can the thing happening at basic level of universe disappear at bigger level. of course it is there. it's just we aren't able to recognize it.