The purpose of the world or properly speaking a world is to create an experience for its inhabitants. It is important to understand that if a world is created and there are no souls to experience it, how can the existence of said world be attested to? Experience is of the nature of perception and perception can be induced independently of any material reality(creation). If God creates that experience by direct sensory induction, without creating the real world for us how would we tell the difference? Note the difference between did not create and does not have to create. The non creation is a time independent affair. He has never created the world, He still has not created it now, and He will not have to.
So why does the question arise as to whether He created the world.

God is an almighty God. There is no feat, either on Earth or in Heaven that is outside his capability. In this so called creation, He has placed enough cues for us to realize that this creation in actuality could be a simulation. Having alerted us to the possibility and knowing that the possibility cannot be distinguished from the reality, what case do we have for insisting that the world out there is a real world rather than a simulated one? Guys just give it up, we have absolutely no way of telling. The possibility and the reality are functionally identical. The reality is the simulation and the simulation is the reality. This is the nature of His supreme power.

Consider a robot. Let us assume that the robot has senses and that signals from the robot's sensing devices create sense impressions just as signals from a human being's sense organs generate sense impressions. It must be noted that all robotic sense impressions are of a purely electronic nature, in that sense images arise from processing of information read from memory mapped I/O areas. The robotic image processing has no direct access to the signals from the transducers. If the signal processing code does not read the memory mapped I/O areas directly, but does so through subroutines and those subroutines are coded to return values from streams that are not linked to the transducers at all then the robot's sense perceptions may have nothing to do with the so called physical reality at all. Its sensory images will be of a so called illusory, hallucinatory, imaginary nature. Now if the robot were to be given insight into its sensing processes through the streams, but the streams where constructed to generate the image that the inputs originated directly from the memory mapped I/O areas instead, wouldn't the robot then be deluded? If the robot was also possessed of an intellect that made it aware of such a possibility, what firm conclusions could the robot come to as to the true nature of its perceptions? It could only then regard its reality as nothing more than the reflection of its internal image generation processes.

What then of the definitions imparted to its perceptions - notions of tall, short, light, dark, beauty, ugliness, happy, sad? If the images themselves are purely illusory how meaningful are the descriptions attached to them? What would be the basis of their hardness and fastness, their relevance?

Since human beings are analogous to those robots, what then are we equipped to say about our reality?

The formation of mental concepts is the outcome of the sense experiences arising from the (presumed) sole creation.

The mental concept of real (physicality = creation) is derived from a sense images which the (presumed) sole creation generates.

The mental concept of simulation is an intellectual outcome derived from analysis of the sense images which the (presumed) sole creation generates.

The mental concept that the substance of a sense image generated by a simulation is indistinguishable from the substance of a sense image generated by the creation is derived from sense images which the (presumed) sole creation generates.

The mental concept of real (physicality = creation) is derived from a sense images which both a simulation and creation are capable of generating with equal fidelity.

As the formation of mental concepts of all kinds (including that of simulation and creation) is the purpose of these indistinguishable sense images, which in turn are the product of the (presumed) sole creation, what is the purpose of insisting that the actual existence of the creation is necessary to fulfill its own purpose, as the sense images it generates are not distinguishable from those generated by a simulation, that within itself it cannot be distinguished from a simulation (its non self)?

As the purpose of the creation through the construction of sense images is in the service of the mind (its need for mental concepts), the conception of the creation itself is originated by the Mind in its original form of God's Mind and if the conception of simulation as a means of sense image formation leading to the notion of creation is conceived within that Original Mind then the creation itself must be constructed from the stuff that sense images are made of. Since the sense substance is not the physicality (creation) itself the creation cannot be said to exist.

Ergo it is inconceivable that the notion of creating the world, could have ever occurred to God.

As the purpose of the creation is in the service of the mind (its need for mental concepts), the very notion of creation itself ( through the medium of sense images and the mental concepts of simulation and creation derived from it) is originated by the mind in its original form of God's Mind

The creation in its purest form lies within the mind as a means of servicing its own (the mind's) self reflection. If the mind's self reflection is based on sense images which are self (the mind) conceived and which a presumed creation needs to conceive (or duplicate), then the creation needs sense images to realize itself, to be aware of itself, these being mind created. Thus the creation itself is mind substance dependent. Thus the creation being of the mind, ie God's Mind, it is inconceivable that a physical creation could exist, as conception within God's Mind would be necessary for its existence.

For all we know the notion of a real creation might be merely the mind's fixation on its own self reflection, a consequence of its egotism.

The substance of which perception is created from within the simulation is the same substance of which perception is created within the creation. If the purpose of creation is the generation of perception then the product of the creation is none other than the substance from which perception within the simulation is created from. This means that the creation itself is nothing more than a simulation machine. This in turn must mean that the simulation itself must be a purer form of reality, i.e. an instance of the divine conception itself, of which the creation itself must be an imperfect means of realizing. Since it is only through its output, the substance of which perception within the simulation is created from that the creation can be witnessed, what is there to be said about the true nature of the creation? What is behind it? How do we see past the simulation to assess it directly? Could it be the case that the creation itself, i.e. the concept of creation is nothing more than an illusory take on the simulation, that the simulation has been configured to foster the notion of the creation, especially if the simulation's configuration does not include the development of a trained mind?

This must mean that the simulation itself must be the ultimate reality.

The substance of which perception is created from within the simulation is the same substance of which perception is created within the creation. If the purpose of creation is the generation of perception then the product of the creation is none other than the substance from which perception within the simulation is created from. This means that the creation itself is nothing more than a simulation machine. This in turn must mean that the simulation itself must be a purer form of reality, i.e. an instance of the divine conception itself, of which the creation itself must be an imperfect means of realizing. Since it is only through its output, the substance of which perception within the simulation is created from that the creation can be witnessed, what is there to be said about the true nature of the creation? What is behind it? How do we see past the simulation to assess it directly? Could it be the case that the creation itself, i.e. the concept of creation is nothing more than an illusory take on the simulation, that the simulation has been configured to foster the notion of the creation, especially if the simulation's configuration does not include the development of a trained mind?

This must mean that the simulation itself must be the ultimate reality.

The substance of which perception is created from within the simulation is the same substance of which perception is created within the creation. If the purpose of creation is the generation of perception then the product of the creation is none other than the substance from which perception within the simulation is created from. This means that the creation itself is nothing more than a simulation machine. This in turn must mean that the simulation itself must be a purer form of reality, i.e. an instance of the divine conception itself, of which the creation itself must be an imperfect means of realizing. Since it is only through its output, the substance of which perception within the simulation is created from that the creation can be witnessed, what is there to be said about the true nature of the creation? What is behind it? How do we see past the simulation to assess it directly? Could it be the case that the creation itself, i.e. the concept of creation is nothing more than an illusory take on the simulation, that the simulation has been configured to foster the notion of the creation, especially if the simulation's configuration does not include the development of a trained mind?

This must mean that the simulation itself must be the ultimate reality.