I see no point in any of the rest of your OP, if your first sentence is accepted as fact/true.
We, the universe and everything in it, becomes 'the will of god,' so, the significance or 'lack of,' any event, either real or imagined is 'forever,' assigned by god exclusively. All existents and all happenings are nothing more that manifestations of the 'free will' of god.

Ask yourself this Ben!
Is god + what god creates, 'superior' to god alone?
If your answer is yes, then god is not omnipotent, as god + creation is better.
If your answer is no, then the action of god creating, is unnecessary, as such an act cannot add any value or significance whatsoever, to god, as an already omni existent.
The god posit makes no sense, so the only option imo, is to declare it nonsense.

And yet you offered me a choice between 2 scenarios with quite different conclusions. If the argument itself is nonsense as you say, why bother offer the options in the first place?
.
Your decision to type a response is itself a clarification that the post had enough value to you to warrant the effort of your input. Which to me sounds less like "nonsense" unless you can concede that you indulged in it for absolutely no reason.

The point of the OP was that considering the beginning assumption, hypothetically speaking ofc, it does lead to - as far as I'm concerned anyway - a reasonable logical relationship with the Omni's. The post was not actually about whether you believe the first statement to be true or not. That is entirely up to you and what you believe or don't.

What I wanted to highlight is that, if "God" was a state of awareness achievable by the conscious mind, then the Omni's paint a familiar picture.

We, the universe and everything in it, becomes 'the will of god,' so, the significance or 'lack of,' any event, either real or imagined is 'forever,' assigned by god exclusively. — universeness

But if every aspect of the universe is part of the "God entity" who's will are we speaking of exactly. If consciousness is the ability of the universe to personify, than one will is divided into many. Often in conflict/ opposition.

For me if absolute determinism existed, choice wouldn't. And if choice doesn't than we are automatic dead mechanistic operations. Except consciousness doesn't feel like that. It feels like awareness. There's no sensible need for awareness in a fully determined system. Rather i would say consciousness résides at the frontier between the determined (the past) and the yet to be (the future). Time perception also seems pointless in a determined system.
.
Lastly there are 2 states at play here - the Triuth (capitilised) as the fundamental basis for existence, and secondly the truth (lowercase) - a state of being aware of it. One is an origin entity, the other is a state of mind. I'm discussing the Omni's as being relayed to people. Not the universe. Knowledge is a mind thing. Omniscience and omnipresence would be sensations or states of awareness carried within minds. Not one single universal being. See the difference I'm trying to establos for the argument?

And yet you offered me a choice between 2 scenarios with quite different conclusions. If the argument itself is nonsense as you say, why bother offer the options in the first place? — Benj96

Obviously, to attempt to impress on you, why god posits are nonsense.

Your decision to type a response is itself a clarification that the post had enough value to you to warrant the effort of your input. Which to me sounds less like "nonsense" unless you can concede that you indulged in it for absolutely no reason. — Benj96

Again, my purpose was to attempt to convince you that god posits are nonsense.

The point of the OP was that considering the beginning assumption, hypothetically speaking ofc, it does lead to - as far as I'm concerned anyway - a reasonable logical relationship with the Omni's. The post was not actually about whether you believe the first statement to be true or not. That is entirely up to you and what you believe or don't. — Benj96

It's not a matter of what any individual 'believes.' It's a matter of what can be demonstrated as objectively true. A person who is willing to accept a proposition as true (such as god as an omni existent) or a proposal that is deserving of a high level of credibility, has to be able to defeat logical arguments against such proposals. God is an unfalsifiable proposal. The first line of your OP cannot be proposed as a 'hypothetical' truth, for the reason I have already given. If it is taken as true then the rest of your OP is irrelevant imo.

But if every aspect of the universe is part of the "God entity" who's will are we speaking of exactly. — Benj96

Gods! The label you choose to use does not matter. Call it the flying spaghetti monster. It fits the notion just as well, as all labels would be manifestations of god. You are just 'of the will of god,' you have zero significance other than through god. If you accept the god posit then you surrender all notions of being an independent entity, imo. To answer your question more directly, we are speaking of EVERYTHING. That's what panpsychism points to, yes?

If consciousness is the ability of the universe to personify, than one will is divided into many. Often in conflict/ opposition. — Benj96

If god exists and IS the only omni then there are no 'divisions' and there is no 'outer' conflict. Nothing could exist or function outside of god. There could be no metagod. Such a proposal makes no sense and so it is nonsense. The proposal is easily tied up in paradox such as 'can an omnipotent god die, like a human can? If it cannot then it is not omnipotent.

For me if absolute determinism existed, choice wouldn't. And if choice doesn't than we are automatic dead mechanistic operations. Except consciousness doesn't feel like that. It feels like awareness. There's no sensible need for awareness in a fully determined system. Rather i would say consciousness résides at the frontier between the determined (the past) and the yet to be (the future). Time perception also seems pointless in a determined system. — Benj96

I agree, absolute determinism does not exist, if it did, then so could god.

One is an origin entity, the other is a state of mind. I'm discussing the Omni's as being relayed to people. Not the universe. Knowledge is a mind thing. Omniscience and omnipresence would be sensations or states of awareness carried within minds. Not one single universal being. See the difference I'm trying to establos for the argument? — Benj96

There is just zero substance to this paragraph imo. It defeats itself. God and your mind state would be synonymous concepts, if god exists. The only way they can be independent concepts, is if the god concept as the only omni, is nonsense.

Let's suppose for a moment that God exists and is the fundamental truth of nature. — Benj96

Which "God"?

How is "fundamental truth" distonguishable from truth itself (or not-fundamental truth)?