Steefen said

The Solar System or the Sun, the Moon, Gaia, the Earth, these gods exist outside imagination. Their power to create, maintain, and destroy life are knowable and definable.

Our immediate god, the solar system, is contextualized beyond itself via the fundamental forces and the principles of quantum mechanics.
In physics, there are four observed fundamental forces or interactions that form the basis of all known interactions in nature: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces. Some speculative theories have proposed a fifth force to explain various anomalous observations that do not fit existing theories. The characteristics of this fifth force depend on the hypothesis being advanced. Many postulate a force roughly the strength of gravity (i.e. it is much weaker than electromagnetism or the nuclear forces) with a range of anywhere from less than a millimeter to cosmological scales. Another proposal is a new weak force mediated by W′ and Z′ bosons.

The life giving, life preserving, and life extinguishing solar system is also contextualized via a whole number and fractional numbers of dimensions.  

There also is the cosmological context.

Hey Google,

When will andromeda collide with milky way?

The monster collision between our Milky Way and fellow spiral galaxy Andromeda will occur about 4.5 billion years from now, according to the new research, which is based on observations made by Europe’s Gaia spacecraft.

Steefen
But earthlings will lose Earth in 600 million years.

The biological and geological future of Earth can be extrapolated based upon the estimated effects of several long-term influences. These include the chemistry at Earth’s surface, the rate of cooling of the planet’s interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects in the Solar System, and a steady increase in the Sun’s luminosity. An uncertain factor in this extrapolation is the continuous influence of technology introduced by humans, such as climate engineering,[2] which could cause significant changes to the planet.[3][4] The current Holocene extinction[5] is being caused by technology[6] and the effects may last for up to five million years.[7] In turn, technology may result in the extinction of humanity, leaving the planet to gradually return to a slower evolutionary pace resulting solely from long-term natural processes.[8][9]

Over time intervals of hundreds of millions of years, random celestial events pose a global risk to the biosphere, which can result in mass extinctions. These include impacts by comets or asteroids, and the possibility of a massive stellar explosion, called a supernova, within a 100-light-year radius of the Sun. Other large-scale geological events are more predictable. Milankovitch theory predicts that the planet will continue to undergo glacial periods at least until the Quaternary glaciation comes to an end. These periods are caused by the variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit.[10] As part of the ongoing supercontinent cycle, plate tectonics will probably result in a supercontinent in 250–350 million years. Some time in the next 1.5–4.5 billion years, the axial tilt of the Earth may begin to undergo chaotic variations, with changes in the axial tilt of up to 90°.[11]

The luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will result in a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years from now, the level of carbon dioxide will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method, allowing them to persist at carbon dioxide concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life, since plants are the base of the food chain on Earth.

Wikipedia’s Future of Earth entry

= = =

Steefen
I do not have eternity as a characteristic for my “local” gods (Solar System: Sun, Earth, Moon).
Deus Sol Invictus is the God earthlings.
Earthlings – 250-milllion year marker (supercontinent), 600-million year marker (no more photosynthesis), 4.5 billion-year marker (galaxies collide)

Some May Say
But you cannot have a theory of god without eternity (all time) and the universe/multi-verse (all places).

Steefen
God is relative to where I and other Earthlings can exist. Sure, there are other beings in the multiverse. They have their planets, their star-Suns, their local galaxies. The God of beings on a planet, with or without a Moon, in a solar system in the Andromeda galaxy, without quantum pairing to Earth, is pragmatically outside the scope of our Deus Sol Invictus that “cares” for us.

Some May Say
I object to the term “care” on the grounds of personifying the Sun leading to anguish over “how can God let this happen?”

Debate Judge
Preservation of life, maintaining life, provisions for life–cares in air quotes is allowed. A functioning car does not “care” for the driver of the car.

Steefen
An unrelated star-God in Andromeda is pragmatically outside the theological scope of relevance for our Deus Sol Invictus in the Milky Way. When discussing the philosophical question, Does God exist, the notion of God must be within a significant, pragmatic scope of relevance for the being dependent on its Source of creation-preservation-extinction.

Robert said

Stephen said
Yahweh has  meaning,  Zeus, Allah, Odin, Maria Regina Caeli, Kali…the  gods that people believe in and pray to – or fear.  All  exist  in  the  imagination,  in the stories.   All  are powerful  and  knowable, none undefinable.   

But sometimes religious traditions can and do point toward the unknowable and undefinable nature of God, eg, YHWH refusing to be named, or to have images made of him, or the developing Jewish practice to refuse even to pronounce this ‘stand-in’ (YHWH) for his refusing to be named. In the Christian tradition, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th/6th c CE) would say it is more true to say that God does not exist than that he exists. John Scotus Eriugena (800–877) would say God is nihil per excellentiam, nothingness through excellence, or something like that. This tradition is embraced in even as traditional a theologian as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in his support for the so-called simplicity of God as unable to be defined in a genus and species. I emphasize this apophatic tendency, while more orthodox interpreters of Thomas, even apologists, emphasize his ‘solution’ of this problem with his so-called doctrines of analogy. I consider analogy to emphasize the rightly metaphorical nature of all language about God. It points toward something. What that something is or whether or not we can or ever will be adequately be able account for it is a goal in a continuing search that should rightly embrace all naturalistic scientific search for understanding. In this sense, as an agnostic or apophatic theological atheist, a god/goal of the gaps is legitimate as far as I can see.  

Yes God is a metaphor.   The question is,  is it a useful or necessary metaphor?  A living  metaphor  points  beyond itself.  A  dead  metaphor  demonstrates  the  poverty  of  our  thinking.   To  use  the  language of  the Bible,  “God”  has  become an  idol.   A  thing  that is less  than the  one  who worships.   A   thing  that  prevents  us  from  having  a  truly  transcendent  experience.   In  the  face  of  the  infinite we should  have open  hands.   Why drag  along  all  this  antique  baggage? 

Judith said
Be sure, if reading Anna Karenina, to get one of the good translations such as The Maude Translation (Edited by George Gibian). Some of the pretty books (Black’s Readers Service) are the worst. You’ll wonder why anyone would want to read it, it’s that bad.  

Steefen
The must-have Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of one of the greatest Russian novels ever written

Described by William Faulkner as the best novel ever written and by Fyodor Dostoevsky as “flawless,” Anna Karenina tells of the doomed love affair between the sensuous and rebellious Anna and the dashing officer, Count Vronsky. Tragedy unfolds as Anna rejects her passionless marriage and thereby exposes herself to the hypocrisies of society. Set against a vast and richly textured canvas of nineteenth-century Russia, the novel’s seven major characters create a dynamic imbalance, playing out the contrasts of city and country life and all the variations on love and family happiness.

While previous versions have softened the robust and sometimes shocking qualities of Tolstoy’s writing, Pevear and Volokhonsky have produced a translation true to his powerful voice. This authoritative edition, which received the PEN Translation Prize and was an Oprah Book Club™ selection, also includes an illuminating introduction and explanatory notes. Beautiful, vigorous, and eminently readable, this Anna Karenina will be the definitive text for fans of the film and generations to come. This Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition also features French flaps and deckle-edged paper.

For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.

amazon 1,086 reader reviews, 4.5 stars
The book is more than 800 pages. Gone are the days of me commuting on NYC subways without cell phones; so, I probably will not read it. Also gone is the public use of college libraries and public libraries in my county.

I like Norton Critical Editions.

I see the Wordsworth Classics Judith recommended, it has 851 reader reviews 4.5 stars.

Oxford World’s Classics has 211 reader reviews, 5 stars

In 1874, in the Imperial Russia, the aristocratic Anna Karenina travels from Saint Petersburg to Moscow to save the marriage of her brother Prince Oblonsky, who had had a love affair with his housemaid.

Anna Karenina has a cold marriage with her husband, Count Alexei Karenin, and they have a son. Anna meets the cavalry officer Count Vronsky at the train station and they feel attracted by each other. Soon she learns that Vronsky will propose to Kitty, who is the younger sister of her sister-in-law Dolly.

Anna satisfactorily resolves the infidelity case of her brother and Kitty invites her to stay for the ball.

However, Anna Karenina and Vronsky dance in the ball, calling the attention of the conservative society. Soon they have a love affair that will lead Anna Karenina to a tragic fate.

Steefen
Not my type of plot.