again not argument just FYI. Catholic teaching with a few exceptions (Virgin Mary, canonized saint) does not say anything definitive about anyone's salvation. Because you can not know what is in the heart of the person, or presume to know the mind of God. Also, salvation is not denied if by no fault of oneself they are not part of the body of the church. (Was trying hard to remember the exact words of the catechism, it says it better, but that is the idea.

OK thanks, that seems a reasonable stance.

It seems to me that you are saying:

1. If sinning is reasonably avoidable, then lots of people would go through their lives never sinning.
2. It is not the case that lots of people would go through their lives never sinning.
3. Therefore, sinning is not reasonably avoidable. (1&2, MT)

I think there are some problems with premise 1. Sinning being reasonably avoidable does not entail that lots of people go through their lives never sinning. God created human beings with free will, and a choice is free only if given everything that has happened up to the point prior to one making a choice, it’s fully possible for one to choose any other options or not to choose at all. If we consider sinning and not sinning as options, the choice is only free if given everything that has happened up to the point prior to the choice, it’s fully possible for us to choose either to sin, not to sin, or not to choose at all. It would be up to the individual, considering one’s own experiences, conception of oneself and interpretation of the circumstance one is under, to demonstrate one’s preference through directing one’s willing toward one choice over any others. God has made not to sin as an option and has given us free will, it is of one’s interest to avoid sin or not. This is very similar to answering a multiple choice question on an exam. When different options are made available, a student would refer to his acquired knowledge and choose the answer that seems the most plausible. The student’s choice is free. There’s no reason to believe that the student’s choice of one answer over the others as a result of such choice being not reasonably avoidable. Rather, it’s a free choice upon the content of one’s willing.

The amount of temptations also can’t be counted as evidence for sinning not being reasonably avoidable. When one is making a certain choice, that specific choice is the only one this individual needs to consider at the very moment. There’s no direct casual connection between successfully avoiding sinning when encountering this temptation and successfully avoiding sinning when encountering the next temptation. Just the fact that I am able to resist the thought of murdering someone I dislike strongly proves that sinning is reasonably avoidable. However, I might not be able to avoid sinning when encountering a different temptation. I am not able to do so because I evaluated the situation and decided to behave in a way that is not avoiding sinning. Successfully avoiding sinning every time is not a necessary condition for sinning to be reasonably avoidable.

Were sin reasonably avoidable, lots of people would go through their lives never sinning, right? But since we encounter temptation countless times in our lives, the probability of us never sinning is infinitesimal, right? Because of this, I still see God as being responsible for our sinning and subsequent damnation. — Empedocles

The specific idea of sin being reasonably avoidable is one of the first area's addressed in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, in which he develops a doctrine of original sin that goes something like this
1. God is perfect
2. Man was created with free will to choose between sin and not sin
3. Man sinned
4. Man is imperfect (1,2,3, MP)
4. An imperfect creature can do nothing to restore himself/herself to perfection
5. Man can do nothing to restore himself/herself
6. Man will always continue to sin (4,5 MP)
Calvin's theology takes into account that man's life is spent in continual sin based on the free will given (and essentially forfeited) in the garden. Calvin attempts to answer the question about soteriology by claiming that no one's actions really matter in salvation, but rather that Jesus's work saved people by it's power, and nothing that they have to offer.
In this theology, man chains his will to sin by nature of the fall, because once one is corrupted there is nothing that he/she can do to restore perfection. Of course, this theology leads to a soteriology that revolves around God's work, so man's religious beliefs are of considerable less importance than in many other branches of Christianity. This soteriology also makes widely unpopular claims about the justification and damnation of people that holds a position of negligible free will, so the consequences most people are not willing to cede for a well developed doctrine of the fall, but his view seems to me most convincing.