That is faith. Subscribing to faith over reason is the cornerstone of religion.

I suggest you re-read Coyne’s response to Myers located here: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/can-there-be-evidence-for-god/

Your analogy to a perpetual motion machine is flawed, unless your father, upon being presented with such a machine by a superior intelligence, would then throw up his hands, fall to his knees and scream that it was blasphemy against science.

In which case, your dad has put science on the pedestal of religion, and we’re right back where we started.

When I was a young lad, maybe five or six, I came up with a fantastic idea for generating electricity: I would spin a generator to create electricity, and then feed some of the generated electricity back into a motor, which would then spin the generator!! It seemed very clever to me, but my father told me it would not work. The words by which he explained it to me, however, I am certain did not go into “conservation of energy” or “perpetual motion” or many sophisticated explanations as to why my motor-generator idea would not work in the real world. He kept his explanation at the level I would comprehend. And what he did NOT do (and by extension, the error that PZ Meyers made) was create a position of authority on the matter by making the possible number of tests limitless, yet forecasting the result of all possible tests. My father did NOT say something like, “There is no motor big enough, and no motor small enough, that would make your generator idea work.” My father possibly could have made this (truthful) statement, and it would have been the equivalent of PZ Meyers statement about “nothing” “belief” and “gods”. But a statement that simply says “there are limitless possibilities and I know none of them work” is really a semantic and journalistic expression, and counts for nothing in the matter. Nothing. Nada, zilch. Stating a proposition of theoretical existence (or lack of existence) doesn’t bestow upon oneself the attribute of “faith” or “religion”. It is simply a sentence that a journalist conveyed, which the journalist intended, to be used as a challenge. Mission Accomplished! It is a journalistic ploy, to create copy. Simply making a plausible language statement (e.g. a place north of the north pole) does not create attributes in a person’s philosophy. Had my father made a statement about “no motor, large enough, small enough..” I could have felt challenged to search for an electric motor that would make my perpetual motion machine work, and I could have concurrently attributed “faith” to a statement where there was a boundless number and configuration of electric motors, that no person or group of persons could ever exhaustively examine. But that would have been a fruitless, pointless, and wrong endeavor. Searching for an elusive electric motor is apart from the fact, the truth, that my motor-generator idea, simply does not work, cannot work.

A single sentence does not “PRESTO!!” make a person a person of faith, or religion, unless their sentence is to affirm that they are a person of faith or religion.
And the word-sentence “Enjoy” is simple hubris.