From Contingency to a Necessary Mind?

This paper reconstructs an earlier computational proof of God as an auditable conditional argument. Its only positive deductive endpoint is deliberately bounded: P1-P5 conditionally yield a necessary explanatory ground. P6-P8 form an abductive agency extension whose central operation, the A2 metaphysical selector, faces a three-way problem. Necessitating reasons threaten modal collapse; permissive or satisficing reasons preserve alternatives but do not determine why this totality obtains; and primitive non-entailing choice preserves contingency by accepting a residual primitive at the selection point. A finite two-world model exhaustively checks the S5 schema on its frame and enumerates constant and contingency-preserving selection maps. It establishes formal satisfiability only, not metaphysical possibility, explanatory adequacy, agency, or divine existence. The Plantinga-style S5 route is therefore removed from the positive case and retained as a diagnostic appendix: P9-P11 remain independently burdened by modal semantics, positive possibility evidence, and the joint coherence of maximal attributes. Computer-supported analyses of ontological arguments sharpen this boundary by showing that validity, consistency, and modal-collapse behavior depend on the encoded axioms. The result remains a conditional PSR argument with an unresolved abductive agency extension, not a completed proof or a demonstration of classical theism.