As far as I can tell, faith is inseparable from logic and vice versa. I've always felt that faith is just the confidence people put in something being true.
This is what I was thinking. I was going to respond by saying that there is more than one definition of "faith." Night's definition of faith supports his theory, but it doesn't mean there aren't other definitions. Another valid definition of faith is simply confidence that something is true or reliable, in which case it's quite possible to have faith in anything, even logic. There are definitions of faith that have nothing to do with why or how it emerges.
But I liked Nemo's post a lot because, for one thing, it illustrated the likelihood that every person's brain follows a universal pattern of logic (excepting people who have mental illnesses). People's minds do follow a universal pattern of logic, I think. I don't think a person can come to a conclusion that doesn't use the process of logic and deductive reasoning, as Nemo illustrated in his post.
The way I see it, even feelings are logical, because all feelings arise from perception. In that sense, I suppose thought comes first, and then feeling. For example, if you are feeling pain in a certain situation, for example when your lover doesn't call you for a few days, it may be a reality check that says you need to reassess your perception of the situation. Perhaps what caused your initial pain is the belief that, just for example, going more than a day without calling you means s/he's losing interest. You could have innumerable reasons for believing this, past experiences, books you've read, stories you've heard. Depending on your perception, you can come to almost any conclusion, accurate or innacurate. I like Nocturne's definition of logic: "[Logic concerns] what does or does not follow from particular statements or propositions."
If all beliefs arise through logic, then by Night's definition of faith, faith does not exist. Everything we have faith in, we arrive at through a process of logical reasoning and deduction.
Nemo's post illustrated it beautifully. Anything can be true to a person if they can reason their way to that conclusion, even 4=5. The logic may have holes in it, it may be inaccurate, it may be based on false perceptions or false axioms, but it's still logic; maybe not the scientific process, but logic nonetheless. Even 4=5 can be true with the right logic. No person with a normal brain would think 4 equals 5 without having a reason for it, and as Nemo depicted there are infinite ways to reason one's way to that conclusion, all of which can be true.
Thankfully science and other systems of methodology correct for a lot of the error in human perceptions, but it is still possible to derive incorrect knowledge.
I think that's a good point.
I see it as there's the possibility of the logic existing but it's yet to be defined/proven.
Kind of like there's a possibility that god could exist but it's yet to be proven?
--). I see it as there's the possibility of the logic existing but it's yet to be defined/proven. Someone is or may be trying to define it because they have the existing tools to do so. Or they create the tools, if possible, to do so. They make a claim and then they research to find the proof with those tools, even if others discount their claim as impossible because they don't understand yet. They may not succeed right away. Eventually, it's found. They provide the support behind their logic/argument to others. If they've given up and no one picks up after them, it just remains an unproven possibility with little or no support behind it. 
