For those unaware the no best worlds argument posits that a best world is not possible and uses maximalism angles stating that 1 trillion happy people are inferior to 2 trillion happy people somehow, this is supposed to counter to the problem of evil but I think it is very misguided and assumes a strange maximalist frame that more poeple is somehow better than less on a cosmic level (which feels arbitrary Adam had paradise all to himself after all) where as the whole point of a best world is to mitigate suffering if you look at it from a problem of evil lens if you are a omnibenevolent god, in this frame whether or not 10 or 10 trillion people are alive is irrelevant what matters is if god specifically engineered and intentionally created evil/suffering/pain etc and therefore there are many "best worlds".

Within many relgions and definetely within all abrahamic religions an idealized afterlife and heaven exist, this conceptually is a best world making the entire argument pointless unless there is no ideal state within your proposed metaphysics.

Another common angle that is used to argue in favor of suffering is that it is a necesary consequence of free will but if that is the case then those in heaven either do not possess free will and thus it is a disfavorable state of existence inherently by virtue of free will being so prized or free will can exist in heaven/the best world and free will does not implicity requiresuffering. In any case an omnibenevolent god would opt to not allow suffering and unless they are not omnipotent it is implied to be within their power to disallow any emmenation of evil. 

Apologetics for most religions only work if you accept god is not both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, perhaps one of the two but to claim both is to deny the claimed reality created by this being or beings. 

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

This Video Pissed Me Off | No Best Worlds Arguement