So you are appealing to a wikipedia article as your definition of logic. Maybe Wikipedia is your equivalent to my Bible. Perhaps we should apply the same "second person revelation" standard to you that you suggest in your earlier post. I mean until you have proved all of the "rules of logic" listed on the Wikipedia article personally, it's just hearsay. How do you know that what is said there is logical anyway? Well by using logic of course. This is using circular reasoning if you claim this.

How is so difficult to understand the problem Atheists face? The laws of logic (we'll use the information contained in said Wiki article as an example) in your opinion are true, because they are true/logical. But where did logic come from? A big bang? Billions of years of evolution not only brought about everything from nothing, but also managed to cause chemicals in peoples brains that give them logic and understanding which is universally understandable? And science and math verifies all this because they use logic? Boy, that's genius. What irrefutable proof we are faced with here. I use logic, therefore it is so. Logic is so, therefore it is true.

Q: But where did it come from?
A: God's creation reflects his nature. Man (atheists included) use the logic, science, and morality that God has given them, whether they acknowledge the source or not.