Nowadays nobody bothers, and it is considered in slightly bad taste to even raise the question of God's existence. Matters of religion are like matters of sexual preference: they are not discussed in public, and even the abstract questions are discussed only by bores.

There is no success or failure in Nature.

Well, what does "good" mean anyway? As Wittgenstein suggested, "good," like "game," has a family of meanings. Prominent among them is this one: "meets the criteria or standards of assessment or evaluation."

We often attribute 'understanding' and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to cars, adding machines, and other artifacts, but nothing is proved by such attributions.

Where conscious subjectivity is concerned, there is no distinction between the observation and the thing observed.

Berkeley had a liberal element in the student body who tended to be quite active. I think that's in general a feature of intellectually active places.

My car and my adding machine understand nothing: they are not in that line of business