Logic is empirical, gained through human knowledge.  Without a species with the ability to discern logic, there is no logic.  You should refer to Immanual Kant's Critique of Reason if you are unsure of the origin of logic.  Kant argues that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God.  Our empirical knowledge is limited and God's would be limitless.  He, living indefinitely, would amass all knowledge through experience.  He knows everything.  We only know the things we have empirically collected. 

But then again, that is assuming that there is a God, which I believe there is not. 

While what you state is true, you present an on-going question, "If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?" 

Obviously, a square cannot be a circle and vice versa.  But without a species to understand shapes, who is to say that a statement like that is even logical? 

The laws of the universe are defined.  The universe works in a very refined (although chaotic) manner.  If God exists, he must abide by the laws of the universe.  But I believe logic presents a different debate because it is largely one's interpretation rather than a defined set of rules.  What may be logical to one may be illogical to others.  But without conflicting viewpoints, whose to say what is logic and what is not?

I understand that our interpretation of the logic can only exist if we make the interpretation. However, logic is going to be what it is regardless of whether or not we percieve it.

I believe that this logic, and not its interpretation, is what the transcendental argument is pointing to. I could be wrong, and if I am, then the transcendental argument for the existence of god is far weaker an argument than I originally thought. The laws that define the way logic works, are claimed by theists, to necessarily have an origin that cannot be us, since the laws will persist outside of our influence. If this is not what the transcendental argument is referring to, then I retract my statements and pose an edited version of the intended question.

If a theist were to claim that since the laws exist that govern our universe or even the possibility of our universe's existence, that those laws must have an origin and that origin is god. And again, I'd like to point out that I'd rather kill this argument before I have to get to the point of saying "Not knowing the origin of the laws doesn't imply God."

And I would say that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, that it still makes a sound. Sound does not require someone to hear it in order for it to be what it is. The universe, and the laws that govern it, will exist, with or without gods or men. I'm just trying to find a way to show that.

When removing "us" to percieve and define "logic", the laws of physics take over to define the universe and to quantify it. Logic is merely mathematical progression based on these laws in the first place.

Oops - sorry. Missed this post where you answered my questions above.

Okay, that's fine, but that's very difficult to answer, seeing as we don't know.

It's difficult for it not to be true, considering you've labelled A. A equals A because you just said so. I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, I just don't know what you're aiming at.

Maybe you're talking about the nature of the universe, and how gravity acts, etc. ... ?

From the internal point of view, "A", "B", etc in logic expressions are symbols we assign to arbitrary entities or even concepts, which we perceive as distinguishable from each other, therefore the fundamental "law" of logic simply reflects the idea of distinguishable, separable, perceived entities or ideas. If we could not analyse our perceptions or internal experience into separable items, we would hardly be able to think in any useful sense.

If external reality was perfectly uniform and featureless, there would only be "A", so there would be nothing to perceive. But this would not be anything like our reality, which must have structure and spatial and temporal dimensions for such structure to extend across. "Logic" reflects and describes this.

This all that is required. The argument then devolves down to the question of "does something with minimal structure and regularity - 'laws' (as of physics) - required to allow the emergence of more complex entities, such as ourselves, imply or require the prior existence of another entity". Note that such an entity, if it was a distinct thing of any sort, especially something which was not an inert lump, in turn would be something with structure, which is logically incoherent and circular. Either minimal structure simple exists or it doesn't. 'God' is still a structured entity, to be meaningfully capable of action and thought, so requires just as much justification as the rest of existence itself., so cannot form part of the ultimate 'explanation'.

This minimal structure is currently thought of as something like a 'sea' of quarks and leptons, or perhaps some even more 'fundamental' elementary stuff, whose interactions are consistently described by basic physical laws. This is all that is logically required for the emergence of a complex Universe.

I think you are asking several questions here concerning the relationship of epistemology (how we know things, including logic) and metaphysics (the nature of reality).

A metaphysic and its epistemology are tightly integrated. The relationships of entities within the metaphysics provide the basis of the logic of the system. The epistemology formally defines the logic of the system. Ultimately, logic is a formal language that may express the relationships of entities within the metaphysics.

To me, the transcendental argument is nothing but a variation of the cosmological argument. Yes, the cosmos seems fine-tuned, but only if you assume that only this combination of cosmological constants produces a viable universe; and only if you assume those constants are free variables. One or both of these assumptions is probably wrong.

If you make the assumption that the universe is consistent and coherent, then logic is inevitable. All it takes is a mind capable of abstracting logic from the observable relationships of the system.

At least, that's my take on it.