You have faith that there will be hurricanes next year.
False. People believe that the likelihood of hurricanes next year is so great as to ignore the probability of no hurricanes occurring, and this is based on probability and observation.
In other words, hurricanes will almost certainly occur next year
because every single observed year in human history has been one where hurricanes occurred and no known factors are present to prevent said hurricanes from occurring.
It's an assumption based entirely on observation and reason. It's a strong induction, logically speaking.
What you are doing is QUITE different:
I am certain God exists, because I see his creations.
You
start of by making the assumption that the observed phenomena are "God's creations", despite having
no evidence to support that assumption (you did not observe God crating said things). It's a begging the question fallacy, since the assumption requires as much proof or demonstration as the assertion it hopes to prove/demonstrate does.
Then you then use this premise which assumes god's existence as your primary premise in order to reach a conclusion that God exists.
That is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Now, what you called "faith" in the
first situation is
really just an example of inductive logic and probability where the
extremely low-probability chance of non-occurance is ignored due to it's infinitesimally small nature.
What you call faith in the second example is a grossly fallacious attempt to claim certainty where none is present.
