Tragic Existence Vs. Non-Existence: A Perennial Debate

Wanted to put this up for a while now, first the quote that inspired it

'Smith would perhaps deny this, claiming that within the inanimate type of world there is no best possible inanimate world and within the animate type of world there is no best possible animate world, but that God is moraly obligated to choose a world from teh latter type over the former type. But it is not obvious why this is so, since we can imagine innumerably many worlds of the former type which would exceed in goodness worlds of the latter type (for example, inanimate worlds og great beatury compared wtih animate worlds filled with unredeemed and gratuitous evil).'

page 263, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, William Lane Craig is responding to Quentin Smith, but I hear Nietzsche vs. Grace in my ear, whatever that means, that's all i'm gonna say for now, I'll add more to this later

Basically, the question is this: is existence in the worst possible hell better than non-existence? Or is non-existence better than the worst possible existence?