**RE: Let us assume (hypothetically) that the christian bible is true and there is a god, and a devil. And let us also hypothesize that when we die, we have this information revealed to us. Assuming that we still have free will (very debatable) in the afterlife, who would we worship?
__________________________________________

Good opportunity to reveal an argumentation(s) recently discovered.
__________________________________________

**RE: On the surface, this may appear to be a no-brainer slam dunk with God getting the worship.

**But for me personally, I would throw my lot in with the devil for these reasons.
__________________________________________

You are tending in the right direction. Observe:

FIRST FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION ARGUMENT:

P1. "Belief" certainly exists giving rise to "belief"-based bodies (ie. person(s), state(s), ideologies, theologies etc.).
P2. "Knowledge" of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" certainly exists.
C. "Knowledge" can certainly be distinct from, despite having been possibly attained by way of, trying any/all "belief".

which challenges the current philosophy position:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

as ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

in so knowing, so deriving the knowing/unknowing 'states' as applied to any theoretical being:
__________________________________________
i. (I (ac)know(ledge)) I am...KNOWING
(leads to: knowledge-based living)

ii. (I believe/think/hope etc. (all: less to know)) I am...UNKNOWING
(leads to: ignorance-based suffering)
__________________________________________
the difference is between

KNOWING and UNKNOWING

now observe:

Knowing of what not to "believe" is (a kind of) knowledge.
Unknowing of what not to "believe" is (a kind of) ignorance.

Used to construct:

PRIMORDIAL DICHOTOMOUS DIPOLE (CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE) ARGUMENT

P1 "Belief"-based ignorance certainly exists would that "believers" "believe" what is, is not and/or what is not, is.
P2. Knowledge of what not to "believe" certainly exists and is attainable by way of consciously trying to know some/any/all "beliefs" to be certainly false.
C "Belief" and "knowledge" are antithetically dichotomous wherein the latter is definitely pursued via indefinitely trying the former.

So: knowledge is attained by way of trying "belief"(-based ignorance) as in: the yang and the yin, supporting:

P1 "Belief" is certainly required to unknowingly confuse what (manifestly) *is* with what *is not*, and/or what (manifestly) *is not* with what *is*.
P2 'Knowledge' is certainly required to knowingly reconcile what (manifestly) *is* with what *is*, and/or what (manifestly) *is not* with what *is not*.
P3 "Belief"-based ignorance certainly exists wherein "believers" would be willing to "believe" what (manifestly) *is*,*is not*, and/or what (manifestly) *is not*, *is*.
P3.1 "Belief"-based ignorance certainly would exist as "believers" "believe" what (so-called) good and/or evil is, is actually (so-called) evil and/or good (respectively).
P4 'Knowledge'-based (ie. use of) (con)science(s) certainly is required to knowingly reconcile what manifestly *is* with what *is*, and/or what manifestly *is not* with what *is not*.
P4.1 'Knowledge'-based (ie. use of) (con)science(s) certainly would be required to knowingly reconcile what (ever) is good with good, and/or what (ever) is evil with evil, which certainly would tend towards reconciliation of good and evil (whatever they may be).
P5 'All-knowing' certainly encompasses (the) all knowing (of): who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to "believe" *anything*.
P5.1 'All-knowing' of good and evil must certainly encompass (the) all knowing (of): who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to "believe" *anyone*.
P6 'All-knowing' must certainly encompass (the) all knowing (of): (so-called) good and/or evil as a fundamental property of any/all possible 'all-knowing' god(s) and/or deities, incl. any/all "belief"-based ones.
P7 "Belief" and 'knowledge' are antithetically dichotomous wherein the latter can definitely be pursued via indefinitely trying the former until the former is rendered obsolete and/or impotent.
P7.1 SATAN and GOD are antithetically dichotomous wherein the latter can definitely be pursued via indefinitely trying the former until the former is rendered obsolete and/or impotent.

C1 'Belief', being required both by Satan, and/or to confuse, is not so much a potent virtue (ie. as in: desirable to become wise) as (over) 'knowing' (any/all) of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to "believe" is, which certainly tends towards (any) all-knowing god(s) and/or deities, should they exist (or not).
C2 Any/all existing "belief"-based 'states' perpetuating any/all "belief"-based assertions taken to be (so-called) "good" and/or 'supreme' to any/all others (incl. and esp. competing 'states')

INCLUDING ANY/ALL AUTHORITIES PURPORTED,

ADVANCED, REGARDED, AND/OR ASSERTED

AS SO RELIGIOUSLY ACTED UPON DUE

TO ANY/ALL "BELIEF"-BASED GODS AND/OR DEITIES

AS BEING:

**************************************************************************
NECESSARILY IGNORANT AS ALL HELL MIGHT PERMIT
**************************************************************************

which addresses:

__________________________________________

**RE: GOD has murdered 2.5 million people, while Satan is guilty of killing only 6. And I am not counting the estimated 20+ million who perished in the flood.

**God is a liar. For example, just for shits and giggles he tested Abraham by instructing him to sacrifice his only son Isaac, before cancelling at the last minute. The devil is consistent, he does not pretend to be anything but what he is.

***And besides, I am sure they don't play AC/DC in heaven
__________________________________________

To close:

As one tends to all-knowing, one tends towards any/all possible all-knowing GOD(s).
As one tends to all-believing, one tends towards SATAN; suffering and death.

Now, these two possibilities as applied to 'I am':

I know I am... (leads to: knowledge-based knowing/living)
I believe I am... (leads to: ignorance-based suffering/death)

difference: knowing what one is not to "believe" in, rendering:

....All knowing is by way of trying belief, but not all belief is by way of trying to know.

rendering once again:

....All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!
Philosophy is dead in "belief".

Right... Well, to return to the topic, here's my piece.

The idea that Satan is the king of hell is a popular misconception. According to Revelation 20, Satan is a fellow victim who gets thrown into hell along with 99% of the global population after Jesus blows up the Earth (sparing only 144,000 male virgins). In fact, the only things Satan really does in the Bible are 1) offer Adam and Eve the knowledge that their God is a cosmic jerk, 2) tell Jehovah that Job only likes him because he’s God (which was true), 3) accuse Zechariah’s priest of being the scum that he was, 4) try to kill baby Jesus, and when that fails, 5) try to convince Jesus to chill out. Yeah, he tells Jesus to worship him, but only after he realizes blind obedience is the one thing Jesus can understand. Finally, 6) Satan tries to lead an army to stop Jesus from destroying the Earth, but he gets captured and thrown into hell instead.

So what’s not to love about the old snake/dragon/angel? The question of worship aside, I’d definitely prefer to hang out with Satan.