I was debating my friend over skype awhile ago and she presented to me an argument that I intuitively feel is wrong but can't put the words to, so I was hoping /r/debateAnAtheist could help. Here's a transcript of the argument:

Basically, you can only prove a branch of logic by using logic of the same means

Ergo, you must, at some point, take a "leap of faith"

It matters not that you repeatedly build up that proof, you are, still, standing on an unproven base

And until you prove that your base is sound, that science can be proven by other non-scientific methods, you have no argument

And that's why science is your god

You said that people believe in god to fill the gap for what is not yet known

And then you claim that what's not known will be known by science

Thus, science for you fills the role of what you defined to be god

I apologize if this has been answered before, but the search function as far as I know doesn't let me find the answer to my specific question.