Each pantheon of gods has things to love about them, and I truly love them both, but when I really think about it... I definitely lean more towards the Amonkhet pantheon. Not just because of the Ancient Egypt aesthetics and such, but also because they directly involved themselves in the lives of their worshipers and don't require faith and belief to sustain their existences.

From a game mechanics perspective, I most prefer the pre-zombification Amonkhet gods. The Theros gods and zombie Amonkhet gods are just so frustratingly difficult to get rid of most of the time, for no real reason.

That's not to say I don't run the Theros gods or zombie Amonkhet gods in anything, I just think they're a bit much.

7077259
No mention of the Ravnica gods?

Selesnya and Ilharg are gods and others may exist. Angels, demons, and devils are god-adjacent beings. While technically not gods, the paruns are pretty close. Several are immortal and they can grant spells to followers in the D&D setting (and in the card game; charms and the like originate from them).

Then you have Kamigawa's kami, which are also gods. They might have the creature type of "spirit" but they're worshipped and fit into the polytheistic sort of faith that places them on par with gods of Greek-inspired Theros or Egypt-inspired Amonkhet.

Mechanically, I like the Ravnica and Kamigawa versions the best. They feel more integrated into the setting. A "god" isn't just some individually powerful tanky entity. They're present in the culture and so on. The instants and sorceries that represent the magic made available to the priests through their deities are part of it. The artifacts that are around as gifts from those beings are part of it. The titles and organizations of various communities and beings are part of it. Ravnica and Kamigawa feel like settings that are more "real." They feel like societies and cultures that arose and happen to have powerful entities within them, and the god-like status of those beings had a back and forth relationship with the masses and a shaped history.

In contrast, Theros and Amonket feel artificial (the latter due in large part from Nicol Bolas' meddling). But they feel less like fully realized settings, and more like "what if we made gods that were immortal and powerful and have some kind of devotion mechanic? Oh, and we need to put a proper set around those things, huh?" When you already have planeswalkers, and when you already had those planeswalkers meddling in the story and setting and being god-like in power (Urza and friends), it's hard to really care much about the indestructible enchantment/creatures of Theros or the zombie'd juggernauts from Amonkhet.

Sure, as individual cards, the gods of Theros and Amonkhet are interestingly designed. They're very durable in different ways and impactful on the board. I just can't bring myself to care about them in the slightest though. None of them are as interesting as Niv Mizzet or Rakdos. None of them are as interesting as Kokusho or Hokori.

7077645
I'm sincerely sorry for neglecting to mention them. They completely slipped my mind and I don't know why. Was originally thinking of this thread to see which specifically between only the Amonkhet and Theros pantheons they liked more, either lore-wise or gameplay-wise.