Everyone else profits from empires, because they create lasting order, when well-administred.

Empires are built on blood, since loyalty is only extracted, in the last instance, through blood relations. Limiting inheritance is not a good thing.

This only makes sense if you think the government should be allowed to confiscate the work of someone's lifetime. Only a committed Statist would think this is a good idea. For one thing, it would not solve the problem. The offspring aren't only getting money from their parents. They're getting the best education, the best work ethic and values, and so forth. Your solution is nothing more than a government grab of the assets of productive citizens that does nothing to solve the underlying problem of growing inequality.

How is consciousness different than awareness? It's hard to imagine how we can communicate properly if we aren't aware of what's going on.

I am sure that we can agree on the fact that we can experience experience. I have two questions here: (1) If experience is product of brain activity then how possibly we can experience experience? and (2) What is the use of experiencing of experience?

"I do not believe that I know what I do not know." Which doesn't appear paradoxical to me.

That still could not make some god. Being part of god, god being part of one,

Only god is god, and to be god you must fit the description, have the characteristics and properties of god. Having the characteristics on loan does not qualify you as god.

I don't think the Bible thinks of Paul as a piece of equipment, rather I think Paul's agency is God's tool.
— Cavacava

You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment.

The phrase "I know that I know nothing","The only thing I know, is that I know nothing" or "I know one thing; that I know nothing", sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying.

"God created the greatest imaginable reality for me."

If he did something for you then you are not him.
You cannot therefore be god.

I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together

Martha: Oh-ho, you pig.
George: Oink, oink.
Martha: Fix me another drink… lover.
George: My God, you can swill it down, can't you?
Martha: Well, I'm thirsty.
George: Oh, Jesus.
Martha: Look, sweetheart, I can drink you under any goddamn table you want, so don't worry about me.
George: I gave you the prize years ago, Martha. There isn't an abomination award going that you haven't won.
Martha: I swear to God George, if you even existed I'd divorce you.

Krauss reacted vehemently and responded in an interview published in The Atlantic[6] calling Albert “moronic” and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless. In March 2013, The New York Times reported[7] that Albert, who had previously been invited to speak at the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History, was later disinvited. Albert claimed "It sparked a suspicion that Krauss must have demanded that I not be invited. But of course I’ve got no proof."

Krauss is one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a "public intellectual"[21] and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States.[34]

Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

The pleasure you get from wine or other things has intrinsic value. It's your experience regardless of where it come from.

Panpsychism is one philosophical route to a kind of theism. I consider myself a theist but I don't follow any particular religion in a recognisable way. I think substance is personal, aware, wilful,intentional and demonstrably so, not that many agree with me. That's close enough to a god to merit calling it theism, perhaps.

Nothing is intrinsically morally wrong

If God exists, does God have a purpose for existing?

Of course if you believe in God you won't agree with this, so I suppose this is a somewhat pointless post.

SOCRATES: Now tell me, can we discern another kind of discourse, a legitimate brother of this one? Can we say how it comes about, and how it is by nature better and more capable?

PHAEDRUS: Which one is that? How do you think it comes about?

SOCRATES: It is a discourse that is written down, with knowledge, in the soul of the listener; it can defend itself, and it knows for whom it should speak and for whom it should remain silent.