I agree that the word God carries a lot of baggage, but I think it would be very hard to break in a new word. Maybe Allness, or Totalness would work.
Then there is completeness, entireness, wholeness, etc.
The Full Monty?
This has put me in mind of “everything pie”.
It’s a pastry crust, and it has absolutely everything inside it.
Where the hell is that from? Or did I make it up myself?
Everything? sweaty socks, stained underpants, dead cats, rabid ferrets,KFC?.
ew
Not only that, but cruise liners, badgers, the sun, the sky, the sea, a sense of nostalgia, the Andromeda galaxy, all the fish that ever lived, a pea, etc.
(singing) …these are a few of my favorite things.
But I’d object to the fish that no longer exist.
Think about this: it’s reasonable to assume that ancient people had names for things that lived in their era but are now extinct. Perhaps there’s no fossil evidence that these creatures ever did exist, but were purely figments of the imaginations of the day. Your everything would have to include these things as well, I would propose.
Example: dragons, unicorns, triple-click beetles, farns and gleephs.
Hmm. Considering all of time does expand everything. Okay, the fish are back in. Everything is everything in all dimensions including time. Unicorns, if they ever existed (as opposed to an idea of a unicorn which exists now), are in too.
The Vastness, as in, “We are but a flashing in the overall vastness.”
There’s your answer. The Universe is all that exists, period. There is nothing else, neither God nor the supernatural. If they existed, they’d be part of the Universe, by definition.
Does the Universe include theoretical concepts? Perhaps the thing being conceptualized doesn’t exist, but the concept surely does. Even if only as transient pattern or series that takes nothing from its material medium.
OP: Another vote for “Everything” as your word of choice. If it ain’t broke…
At the last conference of The International Association for Pantological Research, this issue was discussed heavily, with all sides agreeing to disagree.
The term you seek does not yet exist, at least not in a universally recognized form, but here were what seemed to be the favorite candidates at the conference:
Shebang
Enchilada
Nine Yards
Kit and Kaboodle
Works
Ball of Wax
Shooting Match
Megillah
Is that the Gorilla?
Carl Sagan favored “Cosmos.” Works for me.
Multiverse has crossed over or perhaps started in science. Explorations in String Theory and the nature of our universe leave many Scientist to the conclusion that there are indeed a multitude of Universes.
**Multiverse ** might be the best term we have available. The another option is Omniverse. I forget where I saw this, but it should include **everything ** we do know and **everything ** we do not.
Wikipedia to the rescue: Omniverse - Wikipedia
This leads to the idea that **Infinity ** might be appropriate. Especially is everything is a surprisingly brainy Go-Go dancer. 
Jim
Dr Fegg’s Encyclopedia of All World Knowledge.
But there is more than one Universe, so how can it be everything if it is not the Universe next door? Or is that more like to Infinity and Beyond?
Infinity + 1? But there are indeed infinity sets within larger infinity sets. So what is the name for a Universe that contains other Universees (sp).
Oh, just really noticed WhatExits post. I can accept Multiverse as more than one set of universes but then I back up a step and wonder about a set of mutilverses.
That was what the Omniverse term is good for.
But is “the idea of a unicorn” itself something real, that should be included? It’s certainly a communicable concept: anyone hearing “Invisible Pink Unicorn” in a religion discussion is not prompted to think of a redwood tree, a supergiant star, or Horvendile’s left great toe. So in a valid sense, while unicorns themselves are not real (at least so far as we know, and in this Universe), the idea of a unicorn is.
I am confused a little. However in theory somewhere in the Omniverse, something close enough to a Unicorn does, did or will exist. Does that work?