I'm a theist and I rarely see this argument dealt with here. It is a personal favorite of mine.
(1) Rationality exists
(2) The standards by which rationality is judged are the three logical principles: (a) non-contradiction, (b) excluded middle, (c) identity.
(3) The three principles are ontologically dependent upon thought.
(4) The three principles are universal and a priori.
(5) Only a thinking being which is eternal, immutable, and infallible can account for the universality and a priority of the three principles.
Objection #1: The logical principles are simply descriptions of the behavior of the universe.
Response: If that's true, then they cannot be a priori. Statements regarding the behavior of the universe are a posteriori. This would reduce logical principles to inductive statements. This, in turn, would compromise their universality. It is impossible for us to observe the entire universe, so how could we know that the logical principles apply to the entire universe? At best, we could formulate them as scientific laws which are potentially revisable.
Beyond that, saying that they are descriptions of the universe does not account for the fact that the process of perception and the scientific method itself requires the employment of these principles, which means that they would have to already be in place within us. Even when life begins, anything you experience is subject to your a priori judgments. When you were a baby, your perception of a bottle required you to judge that the bottle was a bottle and was not a non-bottle. It wasn't conscious, but you were doing it.