It has become necessary to clarify my position. Fleetmouse makes the comment that (given all my other expressed ideas) I should say that God is logic, or that logic is some crucial part of God like I say God is being itself (I guess that would be "logic itself). But since I have expressed indignation for tag argument this seems like an inconsistency.
First, to dispense with Tag: Tag argument is silly because atheists obviously use logic. There is no copyright stamped upon rocks or trees saying "Nature by God, C can't use without permission." What is he charge Royalties? "Well, atheist, behold, you died unbelieving so I must condemn you to hell, but before you go, there's a little matter of royalties for all the times you posted on CARM."
Now here we must distinguish between logic as a tool and logic as an organizing principle. Logic, as in "the natural light of Reason" of which the enlightenment philosophies waxed eloquent (and mushy about) is something different from just using your brain to figure things. Just figuring is something we do because of the way our brains are wired. the things we figure makes logical sense logic at that level is just relationships between concepts, space, and things in space. So we recognize these relationships, we apply that recognition to work out verus machinations of our figuring, and that's the use of our logical faculties. God gave us that, it's stupid to say we can't use it without believing in God, because God didn't make our rational faculties pay per view.
Now as for the idea that Logic is part of God or God is logic itself, and here Fleet brings up the logos, yes, of course, I do think of that, I do say that. But that's not exactly the same as rationcentenation that we do in figuring that the tag argument talks about. That's the transcendental signified, or signifier, the big picture organizing principle that places all special creational relationships and all sense data under it's rubric of organization. That is clearly God in the most abstract sense, and that is exactly how medieval theologians saw the logos as being.
I think the tab argument is silly in spite of this revelation. Because logic is not a substance one can copy right. Even at the grand abstract level of the transcendental signifier logic, if we can manage to understand or use any, is there to be used. God gave us that in making us the beings we are. So either God exists, and we are welcome to partake of logic or no God, and no tag argument. So either way Tag set's out a claim about the relationship between God and logic that makes the relationship too literal.