>

But then the question is shifted, why doesn't god just make a world where everyone is good that's just as meaningful as this one? If he can, but doesn't, he's not omnibenevolent, if he can't, he's not omnipotent.
Not a Christian, but I don't think that's an accurate understanding of the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Most often the argument seems to be that evil is a consequence of God creating beings with free will. Your understanding would imply that Christians believe our reality is the best possible reality, which they obviously do not. >

How could they not? How could an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity not create the best of all possible worlds.  
If it could have created a better would and didn't, it's not omnibenevolent. 
If a better world exists, and it can't create it, it's not omnipotent. >

You're just restating the problem of evil here in different terms. I already explained what I think is the most common Christian answer to the problem of evil in the comment above. >

Yeah but that would imply that free will is somehow worth the suffering it brings, also there are studies to show most people have a lot less free will than they think just by changing environmental factors, so in my opinion it's possible free will is an illusion >

Christians do think free will is worth the suffering it brings. They think that a world where everyone was forced to be good and worship God would be less meaningful and therefore less worthwhile compared to a world where everyone willingly chose to be good and worship God despite having the ability not to.
I'm not sure it matters what science implies about free will. Your view specifically addressed Christians and you are thus presumably looking for the Christian perspective on this issue. Christians almost universally believe free will exists. If you want to argue that they're wrong about that, be my guest, but that's a separate conversation from the view of yours we're trying to change in this thread.