This is an… interesting thread topic. I’ll be interested in seeing others’ responses, but I don’t particularly feel like playing God. That’s His job.
Looks like we both will have to wait for a
substantial answer.
Actually I have a suspicion, which may or may not be correct: “most believers shy away from such serious questions, because such questions implicitly admit that this world is inferior, it could be improved upon… and as such it reflects badly on its “creator”. And I have yet to see a true christian who will admit that God’s work could (and should) be improved upon”. Part of “fearing God”, I suppose.
Now, since I posited the question, I will present my answer, which is somewhat along the lines of ThinkingSapien and Bezant.
The actual ontological basis of the world is of no relevance. It could be an electronic world, like the Matrix, or it could be a physical world like ours. In either case, there would be no undesired and detrimental effects, like earthquakes, or hurricanes. Its inhabitants would need no special sustenance, just like the vegetation needs only the sunshine (and a few chemicals). The world itself would provide the nutrients to allow sustenance and growth. So far, it is easy.
The next point to consider is the inhabitants of the world, and among them the conscious, sentient beings (the others would only be “icing on the cake”). They would be given all the freedom to explore their world, to discover its “secrets”, to create theories, to experiment and to grow in knowledge. Since there would be no scarce resources, there would be no need for competition, and as such no hostility would arise. There would be no method to allow them to hurt each other in the physical sense. They would not have an animal-type nervous system to experience pain. Their pleasure would come from enjoying the environment, its beauty and from mental achievements. The world would be an expanding one, there would be no “death” needed to accommodate the growing population. This part could be elaborated upon, of course. The point is that the inhabitants would never complain about “boredom”, there would always be something interesting to do.
Finally, the “interaction” between the creator (myself!) and the creation. There would be no such activity. The creator would observe the creation (no “omniscience” for us! - even though we are outside the “time” constraints of that world), could - theoretically - intrude into the world, but never do it. The autonomy of the world would never be violated. Naturally, there would be no “commandments” and no “sin”. Whatever the inhabitants would want to do, they could do - whatever the creator did not want them to do, the world would prevent them from being able to do. (Like we cannot fly by flapping our arms).
What could such a world provide for the creator that the creator “needs”? A lot of knowledge, obviously. The growth and the change could be studied. One could observe the development of hypotheses about those questions, which are so frequent among the humans: “what is the origin of this world?” etc… The inhabitants of the world could and probably would contemplate if their world is “natural” or “created” and it would be interesting to see what kind conclusions they would come to.
Some might believe in the existence of the creator, others might not. Some might even “worship” that creator, who knows?
As I said, the problem is very interesting and complex. You may even contemplate if you would wish to reward those who believed in your existence and “worshipped” you. You may even wish to punish the “unbelievers”. As I said, let your imagination roam free.
There is nothing wrong with it!
(Caveat: this idea is not mine (unfortunately!). It comes from a great short story written by Stanislaw Lem.)
That could have been a disaster. 
