Actually, I think Roachboy's post was very good. I disagree with him a little bit on some of the details (for example, I'm not sure his critique of Descartes version, which is spot on, applies equally well to Plantinga's), and I wish he'd use capital letters. But there's nothing I really wanted to argue about in that post. Contrary to willravel, Roachboy actually knows a bit about philosophy, and so understands that words sometimes have technical definitions that are different from their common sense meaning.
Will, first, I'm unclear why the ability to be checked and balanced makes one more perfect. Perhaps you could explain that? It seems like, all other things being equal, it's better to have power. It's better to be able to move than to be moved.
You also obviously don't understand the philosophical meaning of 'possible'. Clearly, not everything is possible. Consider the following statement: X is both square and a circle. I can prove (or, at least, someone can prove) that this leads to the claim that X is p and ~p. Which means that X is impossible. That's just what it means for something to be impossible, speaking philosopically. (And part of why, in law, we speak of proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond all possible doubt'). Impossibility is, therefore, a very strong claim.
Finally, interesting note about Brahman. If you read scripture seriously, it can be a bit interesting to think about what to do with other gods. There are, as far as I can tell, three possibilities. One, they didn't exist in any form. Two, they're demons masquerading as something else. Three, they're confused recollections of the true God. I don't know that I'm committed to any one explanation in the case of any particular god, except, of course, the Jewish and Islamic Gods, who bear a special relation to the Christian God. (They were in the same frat
)