I personally choose to believe in total depravity, and that infants are born sinners, and that the God I believe in purposed and intended things to be like this.
Are you saying I am “wrong”?
Dale. If you must see the hand of God in this, then you will. I did for the overwhelming majority of my life. I saw the hand of God throughout history continuing on from the Bible, itself covering 4100 years of history preserved by the Holy Spirit, without a break, right up into this century. I saw it in my life. Felt it. Felt Him, His hand upon me, that He had my back. I understand.
No matter how good a rational, forensic job I do on deconstructing Stearns and Maggie and reconstructing nothing but time and chance, that cannot touch your God. Who was mine. Believe it or not I wouldn’t wish the loss of your God on you at all in any circumstances, except the resurrection. I long for the God of my mythical golden age.
My God does not intervene apart from around the only time He might have shown His hand: Jesus. I cannot make it otherwise so. No claim works. Stearns’ and Maggie’s stories work fine without divine intervention. Reality does. Morality does, including theodicy. I long for a sign that He’s real, I long for a reason to believe, but I’m just left with a guttering candle stub of faith in a starless night, illuming shadows that could be God out of reach. Poor little me.
I envy you : )
I just read this morning Jeremiah 9:23, 24. It is not merely about feeling, it is about knowing. It is an epistemological question and about trusting and believing sources, to begin with. It is also about paying attention to the right things. À la William James, with apologies, we make a continuous moral choice about what we pay attention to. The experiential (or as Spurgeon would say in his 19th century English, ‘experimental’ 
) becomes part of it, sooner or later, in God’s timing, or actually sometimes preceding.
Wish away or not, I could no more lose him than I could lose having had a biological father.
Your mocking belies that.
About him having been yours, past tense, and my hypothetically losing him:
The Christian’s Confidence & Eternal Security: a list
Not above it doesn’t.
So I’m immoral, because I choose the wrong epistemology, pay attention to the wrong things.
I didn’t mean above – I meant everywhere else where you are, voluminously. 
So am I and so do I and don’t we all.
Aye, voluminously. It cuts to the chase.
Yes but rationality is immoral in this case, paying attention to evidence is wrong.
Voluminosity does not cut to the chase. It makes the chase boring and redundant.
Not so. There is evidence that you are choosing to misinterpret or ignore. It is not irrational to recognize the personal meaning infused into otherwise disconnected events and that there is an Infuser.
What evidence? Put up or…
I misinterpret NOTHING. I ignore NOTHING. Nothing you can identify. The Infuser is you.
Ha. Why don’t you start shouting. The evidence is the personal meaning throughout multiple otherwise disparate events. May you become such a person.
As I said, put up. Your personal meaning of disconnected events is not divine supervention
You could afford to perform your omitted phrase yourself. You want scientific evidence put up. You are the one being irrational. Scientific evidence for the God who is, the God who is spirit, is not going to be forthcoming, is it.
It is not only my personal meaning, although I do have manifold instances of my own – it is Rich Stearns, Maggie’s, George Müller’s and innumerably many others’ meanings You are failing in trying to make it my problem when it is yours.
You like to accuse Christians of being irrational using the word ‘magic’ –
I don’t have to put up a rational explanation for events. That’s the default. Making up a superfluous superstitious explanation shows risible grandiosity which swamps the poignancy of the otherwise sympathetic, desperate, desire for significance.
So why are those multiple events listed together in their respective accounts if there is no meaning linking them. The fact is, there is a rational explanation connecting them, it just is not scientifically demonstrable. That is your problem, not mine.
I’m so desperate, speaking of risible. 
That is your desperate and verbose accusation, and you are accusing way more many Christians than just me, and over centuries. And again you belie your envy. I know I have an omnipotent and loving Father. Nothing desperate about it. Which broaches the subject of fear.
This may seem familiar, because some of it is included in my nephrectomy account (you may recall how desperate I was when I was informed that I had cancer ):
Plots are for fiction. To paraphrase Iris Murdoch. Not life.
Some lives are based on fictions. Others are based on Reality, reality to rejoice in.
what does this mean? seems you think of it as a sort of program, dictating how we respond to our environment
it could be a set of constraints and aspirations, which do not fully dictate our responses, which allows room for self determination of the sort you say is impossible
my previous thought experiment about God at least must necessarily (oh the irony!) having libertarian free will means it is not a logical impossibility
thus it is possible that humans can have an analogous, although much more limited, sort of self determination that God has
perhaps it is this very self determination faculty in which we are most like God, and is the Imago Dei
as for your question about sin in heaven, as established God at least has libertarian free will, yet He is completely incapable of sinning
thus, completely incapability to sin is not incompatible with libertarian free will
to refute the above you need to show that God is the only being that can have libertarian free will
Are you capable of “choosing” to believe something that you otherwise believe to be untrue? Can you simply will to believe the moon landing was faked, or simply will to believe that the earth is flat and suspended over turtles? Or can you simply will to stop having any inclination towards whatever sins or temptations you may struggle with?
Our nature makes it impossible to simply choose to do or believe certain things, our will is simply incapable of certain choices. We are very free indeed within certain parameters, but there are certain limits to our will outside of which we simply cannot “choose” to do or think certain things.