PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
no....a deity which exists only in a network of the minds of its followers, then when there are no longer any followers its just another Zeus or Thor that merits nothing more then a footnote in a wiki page.....it is neither amazing or powerful.....Ok. Well, you seem fixated on the false dichotomy between 'real' and 'imaginary'. It's common to classify things that way when the concern is the physical existence of something, but clearly lots of things exists that aren't physical - so it's a limited viewpoint.
/shrugs....your error is assuming that something which is not physical is only imaginary.....likely there are things not yet imagined which are real.....it isn't imagining them which makes them real......there was a point in time when there no creatures with imagination....did the sun not exist then?.....
My point is that something doesn't need to have a specific physical existence to have a very real impact on the world. It merely needs to be represented somehow. To the extent that thoughts and ideas are represented (most commonly in the actions of people who possess them), they are quite real and have a tangible impact on the world.
could a deity which came into being because of the imagination of the created, create the universe?.......if not, such a deity is diminished compared to the one worshipped by Christianity.....
Fair enough. If you're committed to the idea that God is a physical entity that exists outside us, then what I'm talking about probably wouldn't seem "real" to you. But I don't think it's any less amazing and powerful to conceive of God as an entity that lives in the 'distributed network' of all its followers. And it fits what we see of how God operates in the world. Don't you think it's possible that that's closer to the true nature of God than a literal interpretation of the mythology we've adopted?