So if Brother Abdullah was talking about scientific concepts, then he is saying that in a theory, with evidence, it can contradict Islam. Which is impossible...
A theory with evidence
can definitely contradict reality. For example, when we look up at the sky and see burning stars lighting up the night sky, simple observation concludes that they are continuously burning even now, at this very instant. But science today tells us that this "theory [of burning stars], with evidence [of simple observation]" is actually incorrect as some of those stars we see in the sky had burned up a long time ago.
I try to just ignore individuals who instead of staying on topic and trying to provide non-fallacious arguments become personal and hurl insults on the other person's character, not to mention commit paragraph-long straw man fallacies but since I'm already here (and don't have anything better to do) I may as well give a response.
First of all, since you believed he was a trite in his arguments, then you had the moral obligation to speak.
Well,
first of all, I
did not say that I "believed" his arguments were trite, I just said they "can be
argued to be [so]". And even if I believed as such, why is it my "moral obligation to speak"? Hundreds, if not thousands of times all over the internet trite and old arguments are made against Islam, do you spend your entire day, answering those?
"silent satan"
I suppose the following narration was being referenced to:
“One who keeps silent rather than say the truth is a silent Satan.”
Source:
www.al-islam.org/shiah-are-real-ahlul-sunnah-muhammad-al-tijani-al-samawi/introduction-and-forewordI was unable to find any reference to this, so its authenticity is at the moment suspect for me. Additionally, there could be a number of reasons why I shouldn't have responded, like maybe the subject requires knowledge of the Arabic language which I just might not have, or maybe even that I already knew, the individuals involved in the discourse were, regarding their points-of-view, too "excited" to even hope they would change their original opinions when faced with defeating arguments.
I was fiercely defending the Holy Quran against the rubbish that this buffoon was quoting left and right from the anti-Islam sites on the internet.
It would be more accurate to say that you were defending
your interpretation of what the Qur'an says and not the Qur'an itself. The authenticity of the Qur'an or whatever was never put into question.
Additionally, the sites which were quoted,
Which of these are "anti-Islam sites on the internet"? The only reference that can be called as "anti-Islam" was, if I'm not mistaken, a single video from YouTube (hardly a case of "quoting left and right").
Just sitting silently watching the trite attack your Holy Book?
It was
your interpretations and understanding of the book that were being attacked and not the Qur'an itself.
He was also talking from his (...) about the Numerical Miracles in the Glorious Quran...
If I'm not mistaken, he pretty much didn't say anything about the numerical miracles (at-least not in this post). He claimed they were a "lie" a few times, but gave no evidence or arguments for it.
... So if you read it, then you are a trite like him.
OK, you've lost me there, completely. "Trite" would be something overused, repeated etc. When did I post something similar to my post above? And why the need to bold and underline the sentence, it isn't like being called a "trite" is something really offensive and insulting, is it?
And after he got banned, you came forward...
The only thing I pointed out was the apparent contradiction between what you said before and what you later on actually did. Otherwise before your saying that you will not insult and not ban the person, you had previously insulted (several times) and banned him (at-least once) already. I pretty much didn't say anything at the time, one reason for it being that there wasn't a contradiction then.
So what did you want me to do? Continue wasting my personal time on this garbage and his satanic cult to entertain him?
Maybe then, you shouldn't make promises that you can't keep.
You're not getting banned. I don't ban people based on the genuine information that they post. No worries 
.
As'salamu Alaikum,
I would like to apologize to brother Abdullah Almadi for being harsh and rude with him. He was within his rights to post his view or opinion on whether the Noble Verses were literal or not. I had no right to insult him. I have modified my post above and kept it only to the answer to brother Abdullah's post.
I am very sorry brother Abdullah for losing myself. It won't happen again. Please feel free to post what's in your mind freely. I will not respond with insults to you ever again.
I hope you accept my apology.
When Allah Almighty says that He Expanded the EARTH SPHERICALLY...
Again, that is
your interpretation of the verse, whether you like it or not, there
is a significant difference of opinion on the matter.
...this is not a statement of fact to you?
How did
I come into this? Science is being talked about here, not my personal opinions. As I said before, it can be argued that Science is always open to the possibility that anything and everything we know about the Universe can just simply be false.
And as I already challenged the rotten salafi multiple times on, what about the Numerical Miracles in the Glorious Quran, and Allah Almighty Saying that it is a Warning to Mankind? I already elaborated on this above?
Why exactly are you telling me this? Did I in my comment say anything that would suggest I consider one opinion to be correct and the other incorrect?
The Scientific Miracles in the Glorious Quran are based on clear statements from Allah...
Depends on the definition of "clear". Others can argue "clear" would mean a negligible difference of opinion on the matter both in past and the present and that is "clearly" not the case.
