Your grasp of this topic is doubtful. The "laws of logic" are part of mathematics and therefore only valid if the axioms upon which the mathematics is based are valid. The axioms are arbitrary and the primary reason we use the ones we do is that they are incredibly effective at generating useful results. No one but the ignorant assume that there is some part of mathematics not subject to inquiry; there are axioms in mathematics which are in fact not accepted in all mathematical fields (e.g. the Axiom of Choice).
We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B).
*snicker*
Regardless of whether or not the "laws of logic" can be subject to inquiry, you clearly failed to apply said "laws" to your own argument. Or was this supposed to be an instructive exercise by showing how many logical flaws and fallacies can be fitted within the boundaries of a single sentence? I am not talking nitpicky semantics either, but basic structural reasoning flaws. People like you give reasonable creationists a bad name, with this weird handwavy "logic".
You will have to excuse me if I find you a poor speaker for the cause, but that was a transparently ridiculous argument.
So you're saying that transcendental laws and lawlike principles that govern the universe standing on their own, with no particular meaning or intelligence behind them is perfectly rational? Very seriously: Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
No, I'm obviously human trash fit for disposal. Thanks for noticing, and thanks for your input.