There are two types of logical reasoning.<quoted text>
You seem to be using language in a very different way than I do. You seem to be saying that I cannot 'comprehend something as a fact' unless I know all the details? That seems a very strange proposition to me. For example, I can comprehend that the Higg's particle exists as a fact without knowing all the details.
Please be more specific.
False. Just because we can see a reasonable path does not mean we can reproduce it.
Deductive and inductive.
One supplies absolutes.
The other supplies possibilities.
If you are arguing that you know that abiogenesis occurred by arockdidit, then you are claiming deductive truth claims which you can verify.
If you are arguing inductive, then you are arguing for the possibility.
I was originally responding to a claim someone made, that they cannot know anything unless they can comprehend it fully.
They were making an appeal to empiricism, which of course is a flawed appeal.