Why isn't anybody particularly fond of resolving the problem

>>2478683
You're completely wrong and out of step with Calvin. Firstly, it is troubling that you seem to have been influenced by Nietzsche more than scripture.
Now God is good by nature and not by will. This demonstrates that the moral law, as flowing from His divine being, is eternal and inviolable. It is not possible for God to practice evil for the same reason it is not possible for God to create a boulder too large for Him, it is a logical contradiction. God is light and in Him there is no darkness. Thus, God is not good because He wins, rather God is good because He is God.
Now, as for the problem of evil, the solution is simple. The greatest good is worth achieving at all costs, the greatest good is the total glorification of God. For God to receive this glory, He must demonstrate His attributes. Two of these attributes, justice and mercy, require evil to exist in order to be demonstrated, for how could He punish evil without evil, and how could He forgive evil without evil? This is why He chose some for salvation and some for damnation before the foundation of the world, that the vessels of mercy would glorify Him in mercy, and the vessels of wrath would glorify Him through justice.

When your argument gets to 'might makes right', then anyone is in the right to stop you with force. Arguments based on things other than 'might makes right' can be listened to.

>>2478683

Because then you disregard the NT "god is love" stuff. And you then run into a lot of moral issues. It isn't that people never considered it, but people who tried to use it as an argument quickly realized it would lead to a lot of problems and make god so reprehensible that he wouldn't even be worthy of worship. So, they stuck to the softer part of the NT and other philosophical routes.

Even people who do say that god is the one who dictates morality hardly ever say it's only because he is all powerful and that is the only reason for it.