I'm going to say something that's probably going to come off poorly - please, take this in the best possible light:
you've done a great deal of work and thinking, addressing Loftis's arguments in a very well-written, and even perhaps exhaustive way. I don't agree with you, but I have absolutely no interest in defending Loftis's precepts. I.. just don't care. Many atheists here don't. Loftis's precepts are quite educated, very philosophical, and residing at the far edge of useful apologetics - basically, they appeal to folks who are delving into the deep end of the apologetic pool.
I highly encourage you to present your arguments to Loftis directly - you can do that quite easily through his blog, and he encourages folks to do so. He's over at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
, and he'll address your arguments directly if you present them to him.
But me? I don't care. Your philosophical position is, to me - and I enjoy philosophy, and am fairly widely read in it - so much white noise. Loftis was not a primary factor in my own deconversion, and I'm going to suggest that most people here never really addressed many of his arguments beyond the OTF. We aren't his intended audience.
These walls of text you're posting are not something most of us can address. We are not interested in or deeply invested in Loftis's argument, and we have no reason to defend him.
For me, your entire argument falls flat due to a single logical failure: from my perspective, your entire philosophical position is based on the notion of argumentum ad verecundiam
- I do not accept the bible as an authoritative work on the nature of God, thus, splitting hairs on biblical definitions are so much noise. If I accept your God exists and accept that the bible is a definitive holy book, I could find purpose in gleefully splitting hairs with you on advanced apologetics. I'd probably be a theologian myself.
However ... I don't. For -me-, you haven't addressed the incredibly basic foundations upon which all of your arguments are based. Loftis exists in your strata; he can and likely will gladly debate with you for hours on the notion of CLarkian metaphysics. I, and most others here (I dare to say)... just... don't care. Clark writes incredibly erudite essays based wholly on what we consider to be at best a delusion and, at worst, based in a tacit logical fallacy that renders them all moot.
I wish you the best - Loftis is quite capable of defending himself, and I'm curious what he'll say. If you want to leap in here, however, looking for someone to take up his cause? I doubt you'll find it. Here, you'll have to be a bit more fundamental. Most people here don't even care who Clark is, much less give any credence to his argument or the thousands of hours of study you've spent thinking through his philosophical point.
Why not start at the very basic beginning? Why should I care about your ruminations of Christianity? I assert the foundations of your faith are bankrupt - how will you address the precept that all of your argument is pointless as the very bedrock of Christianity is an illusion?