In fact, it is a fallacy. If we unpack Oord’s argument further, we find yet another unstated syllogism:
Premise a. God created humans in his image, with reason.
Premise b. Human reason is (at least potentially) equal to or greater than God’s wisdom.
Conclusion: Therefore humans can determine what it is reasonable, good, and just for God to do—what God should do.
On strictly logical grounds, the conclusion is incontrovertibly true. If premises a. and b. are sound, the conclusion is certain according to the rules of logic.
Premise a. is fine; fully biblical. Clearly the problem is with premise b. From near the beginning of the book, Oord assumes but makes no attempt to prove that human reason (rationality, judgment), or at least the reason of some people, is not only equal to but superior to that of God. Otherwise the claim to know what God shoulddo is absurd. Oord assumes that God created humans whose reason and ability to provide “explanatory consistency” is equal to or functionally superior to that of God.