Fallacies in an "Answered Prayer" explanation?

[Dystopia]

The first premises imply that if you want something and you don't get it or you don't want something but it happens then your emotions (wishful thinking and imagination, delusions, etc.) can be ruled out - This makes sense the first time you read it but I would like to question why your emotions don't play a part in not getting something you want or vice versa - Our emotions play a part in our daily lives unless you are a psychopath, this looks like a special pleading, but I'm not sure.

If there's something I want and the answer is 'yes' then I have to be more careful and I usually ask multiple times in different ways

I would start by questioning the premise. The fact you want something and manage to achieve it says absolutely nothing about the possibility of a prayer being answered. I could argue that the fact my cancer was cured (I don't have cancer, this is just an hypothetical scenario) was because I prayed to god and thus god cured me trough divine intervention (AKA miracle) - But it could have been by any other reason. This constitutes a false cause or post hoc fallacy because there is an assumption that because someone prayed and asked god for help then god did the dirty work for them. When people claim miracles it can easily be explained by science, whether it's psychology, biology, sociology, neurology or psychoanalysis - And when we can't explain it yet appealing to divine intervention is once again a post hoc.