If a creator and an anti-creator do exist then we should not follow the teachings of the bible.

Now let's get down to business. On your first example provided, I will skip right down to the third part because we both agree on the first two. Having to do with the third, I have one observation. According to the Bible, man has free will. Which means that Satan wouldn't know the religion he created would be liked by the most number of people. This is a small observation but plays a big role in this debate. The reasoning for this is because according to you, Satan could have created this religion to lead the most people away from the true God. But by doing this, he would not have known that it would lead the most people away from God. So he has no reason to assume this would work seeing as there are already a lot of other religions that have a great following. On to your fourth point. You say that he created the OT (old testament) and taught what was "good" which in reality is evil. My points on this are as follows. 1. The OT teaches against Satan. As I stated in my first speech, Satan would not work to divide himself. So if he teaches against himself, then it is counter-intuitive. 2. Common sense tells us what is wrong and what is right. The book tells us that murdering is wrong, but helping others succeed is right. This makes sense. Our own knowledge, which the Bible says God provides us, allows us to determine what is good and right. 3. Some of the things in the Bible are not seen as beneficial for us. Take for instance tithing. Giving ten percent of what we have to God. This takes the focus away from ourselves and on to God. Satan would want our attention focused on ourselves in order to keep us away from faith. By giving us the idea of God, he allows us to seek out God for ourselves. If a person is seeking, that means they are closer to God than if they are not seeking. So by turning focus away from man, it hurts Satan. 4. Satan, being anti-creator, and therefore anti everything good, cannot even claim to do good. If the creator claims to do good, than the anti-creator cannot. So Satan couldn't have laid down this moral code and called it good. It would have to be from God. Now for your fifth point. You say that Satan came to earth as Jesus. If this were true, then why would Satan have to tempt Jesus? It doesn't make sense. If Christ were from Satan, then he would not need to tempt him. Not only that, but Christ said that "I am the Way the Truth and the Light. No man comes to the Father except through me. " If this were true, then all the other religions would have to be false. Why would Satan say that all the other religions he invented would be false? Again, he is fighting himself. Now for your last point on this argument. You say that Satan sends his disciples throughout the earth and establishing this false religion. I bring you now to the words of the Bible. In the Bible, the Sanheidran, or the "Supreme Court" of the Jews are questioning themselves as to whether they should kill the Christians. They end up voting to do so, but one of them says that if it is not from God, then it will not last. If it is from God, then they can't stop it. Since they tried but couldn't stop it, this leads to the conclusion that it is from God. Not only that, but the Bible says that every word proceeds from the mouth of God, and that the Bible is the infallible word of God. If the anti-creator wrote it, then he wouldn't have said that. He couldn't have said that. Now for your next scenario. I will again start with the third premise as we agree on the first two. You say it is apparent that the anti-creator sends himself to earth more often than the creator. My first argument here is that this doesn't make the Bible wrong. My second argument is that the anti-creator doesn't send himself to earth, but is already there. The Bible says that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion seeking those to devour. The devil is already there. God has to send himself down to earth. But the real argumentation on this scenario goes on the last point. You say that the odds are against a man that chooses this religion. My first argument here is again that this doesn't disprove Christianity. Rather, by your logic, a man should never choose a religion, because by doing so the odds are against him. So no religion should be accepted because of pure odds. This isn't true, as you have said there is one true religion. So the problem of man is to find out which one is true. Now because we are arguing about the anti creator and creator that is described in the Bible, we are accepting the Bible as truth in order to show why we should or shouldn't follow the creator. So the Bible, as I have already showed you, proves itself to be true. This means that if the Creator and Anti-creator of the Bible exist, we should follow the creator. You have failed to show why we shouldn't. I bring up here burdens. As the pro, I must prove that we should follow the Creator if the creator and anti-creator of the Bible exist. I have done that. You must prove that the creator shouldn't be followed if they exist. You have failed to do that. This means that as the pro, I must win this round. Thank you for this debate, and I apologize for how long it took to respond.