"Easy to say, but what does it really mean?"
It means it's a logical contradiction to impose a moral obligation on the reality of God (perfect Goodness). I'm anti-theodicy because every theodicy I've read rest on illogical presuppositions and are conceptually misguided.

Maybe the better question is: Why did God create us with libertarian free will so we could choose to not have a relationship with Him? I don't know, I'm not God and I don't have Father issues. I like having free will and I've made poor choices in spite of having loving Fathers.

Or even a better question: Why do some people always use the same fallacy to argue their point? I don't know that either, I'm not them. I"m still convinced logic is true and exists whether or not some people choose to not have a relationship with it.

"It would seem to confirm michael's understanding of the Catholic picture of hell."
I'm not morally held to believe anyone's personal revelation of God. I can choose to use it to my benefit or not. I know you know that, so I'm not sure why you think I should allow you to enter it as evidence or basis of what the Church teaches hell is?

If people choose to avoid hell out of servile fear that is better than spending eternity in hell. Avoiding hell is as easy as filial love of our Creator but that doesn't fit michael's narrative now does it?

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/current-controversies-in-philosophy-of-religion/

When will these disagreements among philosophers ever end?

God is not a moral agent.

Easy to say, but what does it really mean? Unless you can explain it in your own words, I don't see the point in using it as a defense against the kind of assertions michael is making.

Your personal hell is hogwash and not the theological hell of Catholicsm.

The events at Fatima are often used by believers on SN as proof of the Catholic faith. This is what Sister Lucia had to say about hell:

As Our Lady spoke these last words, she opened her hands once more, as she had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. Terrified and as if to plead for succour, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly: You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.

It would seem to confirm michael's understanding of the Catholic picture of hell.

Are you saying the damned are not in unfathomable permanent torment? That they do not suffer from not having The Beatific Vision forever?

God is not a moral agent.

Your personal hell is hogwash and not the theological hell of Catholicsm.

Hogwash! No one who believes that people are shrieking in unfathomable torment forever and ever is happy at all. -Signed, a former catholic.

Ever tried reading English written before 1066?

A statement like "There are no irrational numbers" can be falsified by producing a single example of a number inexpressible as a ratio,

Yes, just like Fermat's Last Theorem, which asserts "There are no integer solutions" to a certain kind of equation, could have been falsified by producing a single example of such an equation with integer solutions.

but it cannot be proven, no matter how many numbers are inspected and shown to be rational.

Fermat's Last Theorem could not have been proven that way, either. Fortunately, Andrew Wiles found another way to prove it.

There does not exist a rational solution to x^2 = 2 is proving a negative.

Here is another example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem

There does not exist an even prime greater than 2.

There does not exist an upper bound on the function f(x) = 1/x

There does not exist a construction to square a circle.

There does not exist a non-constant bounded entire function.