[Script Info]
Title: Merged Subtitles
ScriptType: v4.00+
WrapStyle: 0
ScaledBorderAndShadow: yes
Collisions: Normal
PlayResX: 384
PlayResY: 288

[V4+ Styles]
Format: Name, Fontname, Fontsize, PrimaryColour, SecondaryColour, OutlineColour, BackColour, Bold, Italic, Underline, StrikeOut, ScaleX, ScaleY, Spacing, Angle, BorderStyle, Outline, Shadow, Alignment, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Encoding
Style: Default, Sarasa UI SC, 14, &H00FFFFFF, &H000000FF, &H00000000, &H80000000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 10, 10, 10, 1

[Events]
Format: Layer, Start, End, Style, Name, MarginL, MarginR, MarginV, Effect, Text
    Dialogue: 0,0:00:28.67,0:00:32.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理查德·豪威博士，很高兴您能来到「捕捉基督教」节目。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, Richard Howe, Dr. Richard Howe, it's great to have you on Capturing Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.05,0:00:32.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}谢谢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Thank you.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:32.49,0:00:33.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太好了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Awesome.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:33.13,0:00:34.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}请用大约30秒时间。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Take about 30 seconds.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:34.39,0:00:36.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们今天要讨论预设论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're talking about presuppositionalism today.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.17,0:00:36.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.49,0:00:37.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}让我再说一遍。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Let me try that again.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.83,0:00:40.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们今天要讨论预设论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're talking about presuppositionalism today.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:40.53,0:00:47.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们要讨论认为预设论是错误的理由，认为它是错误观点和错误护教学方法的理由。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so we're talking about actually reasons to think that is false, reasons to think it's the wrong view, the wrong method of apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:47.99,0:00:48.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:48.35,0:00:54.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么请用大约30秒或60秒的时间向我们的观众简单介绍一下你是谁，为什么对这些主题感兴趣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, but take about 30 seconds, 30, 60 seconds and just inform our audience a little about who you are, why you're interested in these subjects.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:54.87,0:00:55.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，当然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.79,0:00:57.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我是在教会中长大的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I was raised in the church.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:57.65,0:01:01.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我16岁时信主得救，上大学后失去了信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I got saved as a teenager, 16 years old, went off to university, lost my faith.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:01.91,0:01:04.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是护教学把我带回到主面前。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was apologetics that brought me back to the Lord.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.15,0:01:04.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是什么时候的事？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When was this?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:04.83,0:01:06.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这应该是在70年代。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This would have been in the 70s.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:06.47,0:01:10.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是在70年代，然后延续到80年代，基本上是在70年代我在密西西比州长大的时候。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was in the 70s and then into the 80s, basically in the 70s in Mississippi where I grew up.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:10.97,0:01:12.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}70年代的护教学是什么样子的？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What did apologetics look like in the 70s?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:12.69,0:01:19.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当时有像乔什·麦道卫、R.C.斯普劳尔、诺曼·盖斯勒这样的事工。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So at the time it was ministries like Josh McDowell, you know, R .C. Sproul, Norman Geisler.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:19.17,0:01:23.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我对听众讲话时，我会说他们是通过他们的磁带向我传道的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When I talk to audiences, I say they ministered to me through their cassette tapes.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:23.19,0:01:30.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后我通常会说，磁带是这样形状的小塑料东西，你知道，因为我想很多人甚至不知道磁带是什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then I usually go, cassette tapes are these little plastic things that are shaped like this, you know, because I figured a lot of people wouldn't even know what a cassette tape was.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:30.07,0:01:35.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就是这样的人，神通过他们的护教学事工把他们带入我的生命中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so it was people like that, that God had brought into my life through those kinds, their ministries that they had in apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.21,0:01:35.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:36.47,0:01:46.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们重申了我以前确信的基督教信仰的基本真理，但我以前不知道为什\N么我相信我所相信的，因为我的教会并没有真正帮助我理解这些事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They reaffirmed basic truths of the Christian faith that I had affirmed before but didn't know before why I believed what I believed because my church hadn't really helped me understand those things.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.25,0:01:46.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:46.31,0:01:47.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们没有以正确的方式装备你。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}They didn't help equip you in the right ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:47.81,0:01:47.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}绝对没有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Absolutely not.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:47.95,0:01:51.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我上大学时，这些挑战让我措手不及。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I was blindsided by these challenges when I got to university.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.29,0:01:51.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:51.59,0:01:57.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想我们很多观众可能会有同感，这种事即使在今天也经常发生，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think a lot of our viewers are probably going to appreciate the same thing, that that's like something that happens all the time even nowadays, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:01:57.47,0:01:58.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}绝对是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.07,0:02:05.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}简单说一下，实际上在1970年代，威廉·莱恩·克雷格\N关于卡拉姆宇宙论论证的书出版了，我想是1974年。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I have, real quick, in the 1970s, actually, William Lane Craig's book on the Kalam Cosmological Argument came out, I think it was 1974.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.67,0:02:06.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想我现在有这本书。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think I have it now.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:06.47,0:02:07.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不知道我说的日期是否准确。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know if I have the right date there.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:07.25,0:02:08.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果不是，那也是在70年代。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If I don't, it was in the 70s.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:08.49,0:02:09.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可能是对的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You may be right about that.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:09.11,0:02:14.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}直到80年代中期我成为哲学研究生时，它才进入我的视野。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It didn't come on my radar screen until I was actually a graduate student in philosophy in the middle 80s.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:14.23,0:02:14.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:15.37,0:02:17.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，它让我大为震撼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, it just blew me away.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:17.43,0:02:20.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，我认为这是我听过的最令人惊叹的事情之一。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, I thought it was one of the most amazing things I had ever heard.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.65,0:02:24.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，我最后以那个论证为主题完成了我的硕士论文。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I actually ended up doing my master's thesis on that argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:24.13,0:02:34.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我采用了他的论证版本，试图为它辩护，反驳我在哲学期刊中遇到\N的额外反对意见，甚至提出了在他的书出版之后才出现的论证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I was taking his version of the argument, trying to defend it against additional objections that I had encountered in the philosophy journals and even giving the argument that were subsequent to the publication of his book.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:34.85,0:02:37.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我如何能扩展这个论证并继续为它辩护？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How could I extend the argument and continue to defend it?
Dialogue: 0,0:02:37.55,0:02:38.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有意思。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Interesting.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:38.13,0:02:39.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好，让我们进入今天的主题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, let's get to the subject today.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:39.55,0:02:41.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们要讨论预设论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're talking about presuppositionalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:41.29,0:02:44.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么请阐述一下这种观点是什么，也许还有一些与之竞争的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So lay out what that view is and maybe some of the competing views.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:44.47,0:02:45.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后从那里，我们将看看各种论证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then from there, we'll look at arguments.
Dialogue: 0,0:02:45.97,0:03:01.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在福音派中，我认为我们进行护教学的两个基本或主要阵营分为我有时称之为\N经典方法的，或者有些人可能称之为证据方法的一方，另一方则是预设论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So within evangelicalism, I think the two basic or major camps of how we do apologetics are divided into what I sometimes call the classical approach, or some people might call it an evidential approach on the one hand, and then the presuppositionalism on the other.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:01.75,0:03:04.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}每一种方法内部都有一定的范围。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And there's a range within each one.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.37,0:03:04.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:04.85,0:03:07.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}改革宗认识论在其中属于哪一类？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Where would reformed epistemology fall in there?
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.21,0:03:18.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上，改革宗认识论应该是第三类。我之所以没有提到它，\N是因为它在福音派中不像在更广泛的基督教范围内那样突出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, actually, reformed epistemology would be a third category that is, I only left it out because it's not as prominent among evangelicals as it might be within a more broad spectrum of Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:18.77,0:03:19.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:19.05,0:03:23.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它通常被那些更具哲学倾向的人所持有。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's generally held by people with a little bit more of a philosophical orientation.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:23.11,0:03:33.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如说，这将是阿尔文·普兰丁加的方法，他将他的适当基础性和保证哲学应用于护教学的任务中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it would be the approach of, say, Alvin Plantinga, taking his philosophy of proper basicality and warrant in these things and applying that to the task of apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:33.75,0:03:33.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:33.93,0:03:38.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以它与预设论或经典方法都有所不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's kind of a different animal than either presuppositionalism or the classical approach.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.25,0:03:41.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么请告诉我更多关于这两种方法和两种主要方法的信息。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So tell me more about those two approaches and the two main approaches.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:41.07,0:04:04.41,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上，科尼利厄斯·范泰尔是美国预设论思想的源头，他在20世纪初是威\N斯敏斯特神学院的教授，他实际上说，任何关于神存在的论证如果得出的结论\N是神不可能是基督教的神，那是因为在他看来，基督教的神必须是预设论者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in effect, Cornelius Van Til, who's the fountainhead of American presuppositional thought, who was a professor at Westminster Seminary in the early 20th century, in effect says that any argument for the existence of God that concludes God cannot be the God of Christianity because the God of Christianity, in his estimation, has to be the presuppositionalist.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:04.61,0:04:13.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以实际上，范泰尔会说，对神的假设或预设是所有知识的必要条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in effect, Van Til would say, the assumption or the presupposition of God is the necessary condition for all knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:13.37,0:04:32.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而经典方法则会说，对于神所创造的具有正常能力的人类来说，有一些关于现实的真理是我们作为人\N类不可能不知道的，而从这些真理出发，我们相信一个人可以构建出一个可论证的神存在的论证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whereas the classical approach is going to say, there are truths about reality that normal human beings with the faculties God has created us with, there are truths that we cannot fail to know as human beings, and from those truths, a person can construct, we believe, a demonstrable argument for the existence of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:32.83,0:04:42.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这基本上是一场辩论，如果你愿意这么说的话，\N主要是关于为神的存在提供论证和证据的适当性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's just basically a debate, if you will, over the propriety of giving arguments and evidence primarily for God's existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:42.43,0:04:44.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你熟悉赛登布鲁根吗，凯特？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Are you familiar with Seidenbruggen, Kate?
Dialogue: 0,0:04:45.03,0:04:49.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我只是在网上看过他的一些东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Only in as much as I've seen some of his stuff on the internet.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.17,0:04:53.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我不确定我是否经常接触他的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I don't know that I've had a steady diet of his way in which he does it.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:53.77,0:04:55.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是个有趣的说法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's an interesting way to put it.
Dialogue: 0,0:04:55.71,0:05:00.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，我的意思是我不知道，在我看来，我是否会把他归类为...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's just to say that I don't know, in my opinion, whether I would categorize him as...
Dialogue: 0,0:05:00.97,0:05:01.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.21,0:05:06.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，是的，他完全符合范泰尔-邦森的方法，或者他对此有自己的看法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, yeah, he's spot on with the Van Til -Bonson approach, or if he's got his own sort of take on it.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:06.87,0:05:13.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上就是我试图说明的区别，他的预设论版本与我认为你所描述的有很大不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's actually the distinction I was trying to make there, is his version of presuppositionalism is a lot different than I think what you described.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:13.71,0:05:14.21,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:14.21,0:05:17.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，可能确实如此，所以我会听从你对此的了解。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that may very well be, so I'll defer to your knowledge about that.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:17.81,0:05:19.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他只是一个我也不太了解的人，所以。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's just somebody - I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about him either, so.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.93,0:05:26.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我听说过他的名字，在一些片段交流中见过他几次，但从未真正看过一场完整的辩论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I've heard his name, I've seen him a few times in just partial exchanges, but never really watched an entire debate.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:26.75,0:05:31.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你可能激发了我回去看看的兴趣，因为我很好奇你有多忠实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you've inspired me maybe to go back, because I would be curious as to how faithful you are.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.19,0:05:31.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他有多忠实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}How faithful he is.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:31.99,0:05:39.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为格雷格·邦森作为范泰尔的门徒最能体现预设论方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I take the presuppositional method to be best exemplified by Greg Bonson as a disciple of Van Til.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:39.53,0:05:41.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他进行了很多辩论和其他活动。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He did a lot of debates and everything.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.29,0:05:41.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哦，绝对是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oh, absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:41.87,0:05:46.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他在辩论，而且每个人都说他完全击败了那些与他辩论的人。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He's debating - And everyone says that he's just completely destroyed these guys, the people he's debating.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:46.57,0:05:53.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上是人们说预设论是最好方法的原因之一，因为它非常有效。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And that's actually one of the things that people say that why presuppositionalism is the best method is because it's so effective.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.37,0:06:06.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我要说，这个观察有趣的地方在于，每当预设论者开始\N构建论证时，我从未见过他们不做经典方法所做的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, what's interesting about that observation, I would allege, is that whenever the presuppositionalist actually starts to construct an argument, I've never seen them fail to do exactly what the classical method does.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:06.07,0:06:07.05,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么请解释一下。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So explain that.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:07.05,0:06:23.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以他们基本上做的，我认为这是我读过的所有预设论者的材料中一个长期存在的错误，包\N括邦森的材料，就是当他们定义预设论时，他们这样说，对神的假设是知识的先决条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what they do basically, this is what I think is a perennial mistake in all that I've read of all the presuppositionalists that I've read, including Bonson's material, is that when they define presuppositionalism, they say it this way, the assumption of God is the precondition of knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:23.99,0:06:28.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但当他们试图解释这意味着什么时，他们最终辩护的是神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But when they try to explain what that means, what they end up defending is God.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:28.79,0:06:31.37,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神是知识的先决条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God is the precondition of knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:31.37,0:06:34.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，神是知识的先决条件，因为他是创造者，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, of course, God is the precondition of knowledge because he's the creator, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:06:34.87,0:06:38.61,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但神并不等同于对神的假设。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But God is not the same as the assumption of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:38.61,0:06:46.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，有趣的是这个特别微妙的观点在70年代末邦森与R.C.斯普劳尔的辩论中出现了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, what's interesting is this particular nuanced point came out in Bonson's debate with R .C. Sproul in the late 70s.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.53,0:06:53.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当斯普劳尔试图向邦森复述他如何理解邦森的立场时，这只是一段音频，所以你必须想象。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And when Sproul was trying to rehearse back to Bonson how he understood Bonson's position, it's just an audio, so you're having to visualize.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:53.99,0:06:58.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你几乎可以看到邦森摇头，因为斯普劳尔的声音逐渐减弱。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You could almost see Bonson shaking his head because Sproul kind of trails off.
Dialogue: 0,0:06:58.53,0:07:00.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哦，这不是你的意思吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Oh, that's not what you mean?
Dialogue: 0,0:07:00.23,0:07:02.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是问题所在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And here's what the issue was.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:02.03,0:07:05.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}邦森说，不，我们不仅仅是在做一个本体论的论点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Bonson said, no, we're not merely making an ontological point.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:05.35,0:07:09.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们不仅仅是在说神是知识的先决条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're not merely saying God is the precondition of knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:09.17,0:07:21.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}邦森继续说，因为这并不能区分两种模型，经典的和预设的，我认为他是对\N的，经典方法和预设方法都会同意神是知识的先决条件，因为他是创造者。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Bonson goes on, because that doesn't distinguish the two models, both the classical, and I think he's right, both the classical approach and the presuppositional approach would agree that God is the precondition of knowledge because he's the creator.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.59,0:07:28.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预设论者与经典方法的区别在于假设的认识论问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What makes the presuppositionalist distinct from the classical is the epistemological question of the assumption.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:28.47,0:07:39.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对神的假设是知识的先决条件，而我读过的每一个试图解释\N这一点的预设论者，最后总是在解释神如何是先决条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The assumption of God is the precondition of knowledge, and every place I've ever read any presuppositionalist trying to explain that, he always ends up explaining how God is the precondition.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:39.89,0:07:57.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，有趣的是，就在我们谈话之前，我刚刚在大厅里与一位先生\N交谈，他是一位预设论者，我从我的一个PowerPoint幻灯\N片上引用了范泰尔的话，在一段话内，他从预设论者的立场转变了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In fact, it's interesting, just before our conversation, I was just having a conversation with a gentleman in the lobby where we are, and he is a presuppositionalist, and I pulled out a Van Til quote on one of my slides of one of my PowerPoints, and within one paragraph, he switches from the presuppositionalist.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:57.71,0:08:06.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从「基督教真理的预设是知识的先决条件」变成了「基督教的真理是知识的先决条件」。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Presupposition of the truth of Christianity is the precondition of knowledge to the truth of Christianity is the precondition of knowledge.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:06.19,0:08:07.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，后者我不会反对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, the latter I wouldn't disagree with.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:07.85,0:08:11.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这正是经典模型所肯定的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's exactly what the classical model would affirm.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:11.17,0:08:12.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神显然是先决条件。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God obviously is the precondition.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.71,0:08:12.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:12.77,0:08:16.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我喜欢那种本体论和认识论之间的区别。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I like that distinction between the ontological kind of thing and then the epistemological.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:16.65,0:08:17.15,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:17.15,0:08:22.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么是什么促使预设论者采用这种观点而不是经典观点呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So what is it that motivates the presuppositionalist to adopt that view instead of the classical view?
Dialogue: 0,0:08:22.77,0:08:28.19,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我欣赏预设论者诚实的一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is one of the things I appreciate about the integrity of the presuppositionalist.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:28.43,0:08:37.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为他们在这方面是正确的，就是他们坚持认为一个人的护教学方法应该追随健全的神学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think they're right in this regard as far as it goes, that they're insistent that one's apologetic method should track sound theology.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:37.97,0:08:45.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在人们可以辩论他们认为什么是健全的神学，但在做出决定之前，我认为这个原则是完整的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now people can debate what they think sound theology is, but pending a decision on that, the principle I think is intact.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:45.97,0:08:57.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也就是说，由于他们，至少范泰尔和邦森，是彻底的加尔文主义者，对罪和堕落的\N认知影响，全然败坏有特定的看法，所以他们认为这种护教学方法是正确的做法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Namely, since they are, at least Van Til and Bonson, are thoroughgoing Calvinists with a certain view about the noetic effects of sin and the fall, the total depravity, then they think that this apologetic method is the right thing to do.
Dialogue: 0,0:08:57.71,0:09:03.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}考虑到人类堕落的状态，这是唯一可能的方法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It is the only method that's possible given the fallen state that man is in.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:03.73,0:09:07.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是仅仅因为堕落的状态，还是他们也看其他经文来为此辩护？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is it just the fallen state, or do they also look at other scriptures to defend it?
Dialogue: 0,0:09:07.97,0:09:09.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如罗马书第1章。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Romans 1, for instance.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.11,0:09:16.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，他们当然会看其他经文，以加强这就是圣经进行护教学的方式这一论点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, they certainly look at other scriptures in order to bolster the case that this is just in fact the way the Bible does apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:16.39,0:09:24.93,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但即使在这些情况下，也总是因为这种堕落的状态和人处于的罪的认知影响，处于这种反叛中。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But even in those instances, it's always because of this fallen state and the noetic effects of sin that man is in, in this rebellion.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:24.93,0:09:27.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}正如罗马书第1章所说，我们压制真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As Romans 1 talks about, we suppress the truth.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:27.57,0:09:28.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在不义中压制真理。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We suppress the truth and unrighteousness.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:28.47,0:09:39.77,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但罗马书中这段经文有趣的是，它说神那看不见的属性是藉着所造之物清楚可见的，叫人无可推诿。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what's interesting about that passage in Romans, it says the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen through the things that are made, so that they are without excuse.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:39.77,0:09:49.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但那些清楚可见的事物随后被压制在不义中，它指控人类，然后用受造之物取代了造物主。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But those things that are clearly seen then are suppressed the truth and unrighteousness as it indicts the human race, and then exchanges the Creator for the creation.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:49.91,0:09:57.57,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我看到经典模式是这样的，这整个我们在不义中压制真理的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I see the classical model going, well, this whole problem of us suppressing the truth and unrighteousness.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:57.57,0:09:58.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这实际上是一个道德问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's really a moral problem.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:58.45,0:10:00.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是一个护教学的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's not an apologetics issue.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:00.09,0:10:05.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}护教学家无法消除某人对真理的压制和对神的反叛。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The apologists can't undo someone's suppression of the truth and rebellion against God.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:05.69,0:10:08.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是他们与神之间的事，通过圣灵的作为。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's between them and God through the act of the Holy Spirit.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.13,0:10:12.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我认为，用受造物取代造物主，这就是护教学发挥作用的地方。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But this exchanging the Creator for the creation, I think, is where the apologetics comes in.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:12.83,0:10:19.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它说，看，我们可以利用一个论证来表明用受造物取代造物主是错误的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It says, look, we can leverage an argument to show that His exchanging the Creator for the creation is just false.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:19.87,0:10:24.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有一位我们知道存在的神，我们可以用合理的理由来证明。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There is the God that we know there to be, and we can demonstrate it by sound reason.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:24.79,0:10:29.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果他们要继续压制真理和不义，压制那个，那是他们与神之间的事。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What they do with that, if they're going to continue to suppress the truth and unrighteousness, and suppress that, that's between them and God.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:29.23,0:10:32.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这不是护教学家能够触及的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's not anything that the apologists can touch.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:32.17,0:10:40.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我认为没有完全贯彻这一点，他们清楚地看到属\N性，然后真理被压制，然后造物主被受造物取代。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I think the failure to sort of follow it through, they're clearly seeing attributes, then the truth is suppressed, and then the Creator creation is exchanged.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:41.21,0:10:47.31,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预设论者似乎忘记了第三步，他们认为这只是一个问题，它被清楚地看到，然后被压制。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The presuppositionalist sort of forgets that third step, and they think it's just merely a matter, it's clearly seen, and it's suppressed.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.53,0:10:52.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么，如果这就是全部问题，解除压制的唯一方法不是护教学，而是传福音。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well then, if that's all the problem is, the only way to unsuppress it is not apologetics, it's evangelism.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:52.81,0:11:02.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以确实，很多预设论者几乎会说，事实上，我听他们说\N过，实际上，任务是传福音，而不是试图为福音辩护。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So indeed, a lot of presuppositionalists would almost say, in fact, I've heard them say things, to the effect, really, the task force is to preach the gospel, not to try to defend the gospel.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:02.67,0:11:09.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我说，嗯，但为福音辩护将解决那第三个层面，即造物主被受造物取代的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I go, well, but to defend the gospel is going to address that third level there, where the Creator is exchanged for the creation.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.73,0:11:23.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我认为预设论者对基督教和圣经有如此高的看法是好的，这也是他们说经典方法不\N好的一点，就是你没有假设基督教是真实的，而这就像是最大的善，是最伟大的信仰。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I think it's good that presuppositionalists have such a high view of Christianity and Scripture, and that's one of the things they say that is bad with the classical approach, is that you're not sort of assuming that Christianity is true, and that's like the greatest good, that's the greatest thing to believe.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:23.39,0:11:26.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么在经典观点中如何看待这个问题呢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so how, but in a classical view.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:26.23,0:11:27.29,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}比如说。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So for instance.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:27.29,0:11:36.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当我在讲解卡拉姆宇宙论论证时，这并不一定直接导向\N基督教是真实的结论，这是预设论者不喜欢的一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When I'm giving a presentation on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that doesn't necessarily lead all the way to Christianity is true, and that's one of the things that presuppositionalists don't like.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:36.63,0:11:37.09,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's right.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:37.09,0:11:41.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实是你并不是每次都直接指向基督教，始终如此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is the fact that you're not going all the way to Christianity every single time, all the time.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:41.73,0:11:44.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，在这一点上我同意预设论者的看法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, and I agree with the presuppositionalists in that regard.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.11,0:11:44.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Exactly.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.55,0:11:44.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:44.95,0:11:46.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}抱歉，我打断了你。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I'm sorry, I interrupted you.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:46.71,0:11:47.45,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，就是这样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, that was it.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:47.45,0:11:55.73,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我认为他们是对的，虽然我喜欢卡拉姆论证，我认为它确实只给你一些最基本的事实。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I think that they're right, and though I like the Kalam Argument, I think it is true that it only gives you some minimal facts.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:55.73,0:11:57.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这在很多情况下可能是足够的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which may be in a lot of situations.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:57.17,0:11:58.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在很多情况下，这就足够了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}In a lot of situations, that's enough.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:58.53,0:12:02.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}人们得出结论，嗯，你有一个创造宇宙的存在，听起来像神，然后他们就开始行动了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}People conclude, well, you've got somebody that made the universe sounds like God, and they're off and running.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.91,0:12:03.53,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好吧，行。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay, fine.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:03.53,0:12:08.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但如果有人要反驳，你会说，嗯，卡拉姆论证并不能证明创造宇宙的存在仍然存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But a person who's going to push back, you go, well, the Kalam doesn't prove that whoever created the universe still exists.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:08.51,0:12:10.81,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也许他创造了宇宙然后就不存在了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Maybe he created the universe and went out of existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:10.81,0:12:12.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并不能证明他是善良的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Doesn't prove that he's good.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:12.47,0:12:18.69,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}除非你添加额外的论证要素，否则这并不能必然证明他是有位格的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Doesn't prove that he's personal necessarily, unless you add the additional elements that's additional to the argument.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:18.69,0:12:20.25,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我同意所有这些。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I agree with all that.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:20.25,0:12:27.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是为什么，作为一个托马斯主义者，我会说，是的，但有趣的是，阿奎那的论证不仅给你...\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's why, as a Thomist, I would say, yeah, but Aquinas' argument, interestingly, not only gives you...
Dialogue: 0,0:12:27.17,0:12:28.33,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}等等，哪个论证？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wait, which argument?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:28.33,0:12:29.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哪个托马斯主义论证？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Which Thomist argument?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:29.03,0:12:43.97,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实际上是所有的论证，但它们被分解为五种方式，我通常更多地使用的是他在《论\N存在与本质》中给出的论证，这涉及本质和存在之间的区别，不管这意味着什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, all of them, actually, but they're parsed out as the five ways, but the one that I typically give more often is the way that is the argument he gives in his On Being and Essence, which traffics in the distinction between essence and existence, whatever that means.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:43.97,0:12:43.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:43.99,0:12:45.01,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那不是第四种方式吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Isn't that the fourth way?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.01,0:12:45.89,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那是第四种还是第五种方式？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Is that the fourth way or the fifth?
Dialogue: 0,0:12:45.89,0:12:46.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，不是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, it's not.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:46.07,0:12:47.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不。哦，它不是任何一种方式。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No. Oh, it's not any of the ways.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:47.43,0:12:57.17,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，它贯穿于所有五种方式中，但在《论存在与本质》中有明\N确的表述，这种表述或措辞在第一种方式中不那么容易看出。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it is infused through all five ways, but it's explicitly given in On Being and Essence in a version or in a wording that is not as easy to see in the first.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:57.17,0:13:06.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以对我来说，通常更容易直接切入所有这些论证的\N核心，它涉及本质、存在、区别，不管最终是什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So it's usually easier for me to just kind of cut to the, here's the kernel of all of those arguments, and it traffics in this essence, existence, distinction, whatever that ends up being.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:06.49,0:13:09.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么你的观点是从这里我们可以一直推导到基督教吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so is your point that from here we can go all the way to Christianity?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:09.79,0:13:10.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不止于此。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}More than that.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.71,0:13:11.13,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:11.13,0:13:11.99,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不止于此？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}More than that?
Dialogue: 0,0:13:11.99,0:13:12.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:12.49,0:13:24.85,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不止于此的意思是，我们不仅可以一直推导到基督教，而且\N阿奎那论证中对神的证明必然包含了神所有的至高属性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}More than that in the sense that not that we can go all the way to Christianity, but that the demonstration of God in Aquinas' argument inexorably entails all the superlative attributes of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:24.85,0:13:25.49,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯哼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Mm -hmm.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:25.53,0:13:27.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}现在，它可能还不足以完全推导到基督教。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, it may not be all the way to Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:27.03,0:13:29.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它可能不足以完全推导到基督教，因为它没有给我们特殊启示。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It may not be all the way to Christianity in the sense that it gives us special revelation.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:30.01,0:13:40.65,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我承认它没有给我们那个，但它给了我们经典神论的神，\N也就是只有一位神，所以经典神论的神必须是圣经中的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I'll grant that it doesn't give us that, but it gives us the God of classical theism, which is there's only one God, so the God of classical theism would have to be the God of the Bible.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:41.00,0:13:47.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当预设论者或经典方法的批评者说，嗯，它没有给我们完全推导到基督教时。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}When it comes to if the presuppositionalists or a critic of the classical method says, well, it doesn't give us all the way to Christianity.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:47.92,0:13:52.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果这意味着它还没有给我们圣经，我会承认这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If by that it means it doesn't give us the Bible yet, I would concede that.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:52.50,0:13:57.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后我会说，这是因为我可以给出额外的论证来说明为什么我们知道。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then I would say that's because I can give additional arguments for why we know.
Dialogue: 0,0:13:57.30,0:14:05.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我知道圣经是神对自己的启示，是他的特殊启示，这与自然神学和他存在的论证不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I know that the Bible is God's revelation of himself, his special revelation, which is different than the arguments of natural theology and his existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:05.84,0:14:19.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我否认的是，阿奎那的这种经典方法所呈现的神，我否认他给我们的\N神是某种最小程度的神论，就像在一些预设论文献中经常描述的那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But what I deny is that the God that's delivered by this classical method of Aquinas, I deny the fact that the God that he gives us is some kind of minimal theism, as it's often described in some of the presuppositional literature.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:19.88,0:14:20.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，它不是一种最小主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, it's not a minimalism.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:20.58,0:14:22.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以你会说它给我们的是经典神论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So you would say it's classical theism that it gives us.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:22.38,0:14:23.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}绝对是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:23.14,0:14:24.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是简单性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's simplicity.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:24.32,0:14:25.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是不变性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's immutability.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:25.30,0:14:26.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是非物质性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's immateriality.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:27.82,0:14:28.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}全能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Omnipotence.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:28.52,0:14:29.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}全能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Omnipotence.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:29.06,0:14:35.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神所有的经典属性都不可避免地从这个简单的神存在的证明中涌现出来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All of the classical attributes of God cascade inexorably from this simple demonstration of God's existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:35.94,0:14:39.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然后这些属性的源头就是简单性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then the sort of fountainhead of the attributes would be simplicity.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:39.98,0:14:46.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一旦解释了简单性，所有其他属性就必然且不可避免地随之而来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And then once simplicity is explained, then all the other attributes follow inevitably and unavoidably.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.32,0:14:50.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}既然只有一位神，那么这必须是圣经中的神。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And since there is only one God, then that has to be the God of the Bible.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:50.60,0:14:56.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我很想在这里跑题，再花一个小时左右讨论你刚才给出的这个论证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm tempted to go off track here and just talk about this argument that you just gave for another hour or so.
Dialogue: 0,0:14:56.60,0:15:05.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但让我们，那么经典护教学家如何能更好地将其带回最重要的内容，也就是福音信息。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But let's, so how can classical apologists do better about bringing it back to what's most important, right, is the gospel message.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:05.98,0:15:08.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一个问题，我想快速听听你的想法。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And this is something, I'll just get your thoughts on this real quick.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:08.80,0:15:13.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我一直在研究的一件事是讲道学和护教学之间的关系。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So one of the things I've been studying is the relationship between homiletics and apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:13.46,0:15:19.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}事实上，在讲道学中，好的讲道者总是、总是、总是将他们的信息与耶稣联系起来。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And the fact that in homiletics, good preachers always, always, always tie their messages back to Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:19.24,0:15:19.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Okay.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:19.72,0:15:23.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为在护教学中，经典方法仍然可以以某种方式融入这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think in apologetics, the classical approach can still incorporate this somehow.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:23.86,0:15:26.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为克雷格博士在他的一些辩论中做得非常出色。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think Dr. Craig does this beautifully in some of his debates.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.38,0:15:26.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}绝对是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:26.86,0:15:30.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在他辩论结束时，他会给出一种见证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Where he'll give, at the end of his debate, he'll give a sort of testimony.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:30.40,0:15:30.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:30.72,0:15:38.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他会说，如果你想认识这个人，那么我邀请你多读一些关于这方面的\N内容，阅读新约，看看你的生命是否像我的生命一样发生了改变。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And say, if you want to know this person, then I invite you to read more about this and read the New Testament and see if your life has changed like mine was changed.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.22,0:15:38.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Right.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:38.42,0:15:46.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我认为我们需要做的是找到创造性的方法，经典\N方法可以找到创造性的方法来始终将其带回福音。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so what I think what we need to do is find creative ways, the classical approach can find creative ways to always bring it back to the gospel.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:46.20,0:15:46.98,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这并非不可能。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And it's not impossible.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:46.98,0:15:47.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}绝对是。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:47.24,0:15:52.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就像一个好的讲道者会把但以理书中的一段经文一直带回到耶稣身上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Just like a good preacher will bring a passage in Daniel all the way back to Jesus.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:52.22,0:15:52.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yes.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:52.42,0:15:55.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想我会为此欢呼。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think I would celebrate that.
Dialogue: 0,0:15:55.08,0:16:02.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我认为有时我们会发现，这样做的机会可能会比我们希望的时间更长。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I think sometimes we'll find ourselves, the opportunity to do that may be strewn out over a longer period of time than we wish.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:02.88,0:16:11.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}也就是说，当我和一个无神论朋友共进午餐，我们进\N行辩论时，可能不会在午餐结束前就完全讲到福音。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That is to say, it might not be the case that when I have lunch with an atheist friend and we have our argument that before lunch is over, I've gotten all the way to the gospel.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.88,0:16:22.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}可能需要更多的铺垫，更多的对话或其他方式，才能达到传福音有意义的地步。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It may be that it's going to take a little bit more plowing the field, massaging the conversation or whatever before I ever get to the point where giving the gospel would even make sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:22.32,0:16:23.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这需要判断。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a judgment call.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:23.72,0:16:25.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的意思是，没有什么是永远正确的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I mean, there's nothing ever right.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:25.06,0:16:26.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无论如何，单纯传福音从来都没有错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There's nothing ever wrong with just giving the gospel no matter what.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:26.96,0:16:29.60,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就这一点而言，你可以给他们一个四个属灵定律的小册子。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You can hand them a four spiritual laws track for that matter.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:29.60,0:16:50.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我说的是，在线性思维的层层递进和联系中，一个人只有在理解了神是谁，作为创造者，具有经\N典神论属性的神之后，才能够考虑基督教信仰的真理，特别是关于耶稣是道成肉身的神这一点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I'm talking about in terms of the cascade and connections of linear thought that once and until a person understands who God is, as far as being the creator, the God of classical theism with his attributes, it's only then that they're even in a position to consider the truths of the Christian faith specifically in terms of Jesus being God in flesh.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:50.92,0:16:55.34,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我认为预设论面临的一个特殊困难是，我们实际上没有取得任何进展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I think one of the difficulties that presuppositionalism faces in particular, I think, is that we're not really making any headway.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:55.34,0:17:05.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为我们在做的是如何与其他信仰的人交流，比如一个穆斯林护教者或类似的\N人，因为如果你在和一个穆斯林交谈，你不能必然假设基督教在那里，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think what we're doing is how to engage someone of another faith, like a Muslim apologist or something like that, because you can't have necessarily the assumption of Christianity there if you're talking with a Muslim, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:05.28,0:17:06.24,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那么这是如何运作的呢？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So how does that work?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:06.24,0:17:09.30,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，有趣的是——它对经典方法并没有任何真正的问题，对吧？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, what's funny— It doesn't really have any problem with the classical approach, right?
Dialogue: 0,0:17:09.30,0:17:10.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这很有趣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, it's funny.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:10.18,0:17:18.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不，它没有。有趣的是，我实际上正在与一个预设论者交谈\N，就在中途，因为我想，嗯，我实在没有取得任何进展。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}No, it doesn't. And it's funny, I was actually in a conversation with a presuppositionalist and right in midstream because I thought, well, I'm not really making any headway.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:18.04,0:17:19.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我在这里并不是很有说服力。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'm not really very persuasive here.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:19.92,0:17:24.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我就转换了，开始以一个预设论的穆斯林的身份进行辩论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I just switched, and I began to argue as a presuppositionalist Muslim.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:24.86,0:17:25.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}哇。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Wow.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:25.06,0:17:35.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对于这个基督徒对我说的每一件事，我都说，问题是你没有预设古兰经自证无误的话语。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And everything this Christian said to me, I said, the problem is you're not presupposing the self -authenticating, infallible word of the Koran.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:35.56,0:17:36.62,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是你的问题。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's your problem.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:36.62,0:17:50.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你没有顺服于一切的权威先决条件，不管你怎么说，我用了所有我能想到的预\N设论者的语言，除了说基督教或说圣经，我说的是穆斯林，我说的是古兰经。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}You're not submitting yourself to the authoritative precondition of all, however you want to say it, and used all the language that I could think of, of the presuppositionalist, except saying Christian or saying Bible, I said Muslim, and I said Koran.
Dialogue: 0,0:17:50.02,0:18:02.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为了让他看到，就你所做的模板而言，它无法裁决不同\N的宗教，每种宗教都可能做出相同的预设权威主张。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And in order to try to get him to see that as far as the template of what you're doing, it can't adjudicate different religions, each of which might make the same presuppositional authoritarian claims.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:02.54,0:18:04.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有办法在它们之间做出裁决。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}There was no way to adjudicate between them.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:04.68,0:18:08.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一些人甚至对改革宗认识论提出的批评。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}This is a critique that some people even raise against Reformed epistemology.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:08.48,0:18:09.70,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你对此有什么看法？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What are your thoughts on that?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:09.70,0:18:12.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你认为这同样适用于改革宗认识论吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Do you think it equally works against Reformed epistemology?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:12.66,0:18:22.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我对改革宗认识论最初的问题是，它试图最终将问题框定为，这不是我们的理由吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}My initial problem with the Reformed epistemology is trying to ultimately frame the issues in terms of, aren't our justifications?
Dialogue: 0,0:18:22.16,0:18:35.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是我对分析哲学的一个小怪癖，它试图解决认识论问题\N，而没有最终将认识论关切建立在形而上学的基础上。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So this is a sort of a piccadillo of mine with analytic philosophy, that it tries to settle epistemological issues without ultimately grounding epistemological concerns in metaphysics.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:35.70,0:18:47.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我认为这是20世纪和现在21世纪分析哲学产生方\N式的一个缺点，哲学中的许多领域现在都有点脱节了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So I think it's one of the sort of drawbacks of a lot of the way in which analytic philosophy has come about in the 20th and now in the 21st century, that a lot of fields in philosophy are all now sort of detached.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:47.96,0:18:49.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以我们在做我的哲学。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So we're doing philosophy of mine.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:50.02,0:18:51.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在做认识论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're doing epistemology.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.18,0:18:59.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们在做所有这些不同的事情，好像一个人可以以一种\N对任何形而上学承诺都无所谓的方式来做这些事情。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}We're doing all these different things as if one could do those in a way that's indifferent to any metaphysical commitments.
Dialogue: 0,0:18:59.60,0:19:01.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我会说你不能那样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would argue you can't do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:01.48,0:19:08.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对我来说，改革宗认识论似乎并没有做对，因为阿尔文·普兰丁加说，嗯，他有两个条件陈述。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}To me, it doesn't seem like Reformed epistemology is doing that right, because Alvin Plantinga said, well, he has two conditional statements.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:08.26,0:19:11.42,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果基督教是真实的，那么基督教信仰可能是有保证的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}If Christianity is true, then Christian belief is probably warranted.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:11.42,0:19:15.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以这似乎确实将一个形而上学的论题与一个认识论的论题联系在一起。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So that does seem to tie in a metaphysical thesis with an epistemological thesis.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:15.26,0:19:23.74,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但有趣的是，在他关于保证的第三卷的最后，他终于提出\N，好吧，现在说了这些，问题是，基督教是真实的吗？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But it's interesting, at the very end of the third volume on his set on warrant, he finally brings up, well, now having said all this, now the question is, is Christianity true?
Dialogue: 0,0:19:23.74,0:19:25.94,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们只能把这个留到另一个时候讨论了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And we'll just have to leave that for another.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:25.94,0:19:47.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我想，嗯，我认为没有人能成功地进行一个关于保证的讨论，用他的术语，或知识\N的讨论，而同时不承诺某些形而上学的东西，这些东西正是证明神存在的要素。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I thought, well, I don't think anyone could successfully carry through a discussion about warrant, to use his term, or knowledge without at the same time committing themselves to certain things in metaphysics that are the very ingredients of the demonstration of God's existence.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:47.12,0:19:51.22,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，在我看来，它们似乎是共存亡的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in other words, they seem to me, they seem to kind of stand or fall together.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:51.22,0:19:58.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在我看来，你不能以这样的方式处理认识论问题，好\N像我们不会对这些形而上学的事情做出任何判断。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And you can't, in my judgment, deal with the epistemological issues in a way that, well, we're not going to make any judgments about these metaphysical things.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:58.00,0:19:59.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我说，我认为你不能那样做。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I go, I think you can't do that.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:59.38,0:20:03.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的，所以我认为普兰丁加在那本书中所做的有点不同。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah, so I think that what Plantinga was doing in that book was a little bit different.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:03.18,0:20:05.26,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他并不是试图证明我们是有保证的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He wasn't trying to prove that we are warranted.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:05.26,0:20:09.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他是在说，对基督教信仰没有好的法律上的反对理由。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}He was saying there is no good de jure objection to Christian belief.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:09.12,0:20:11.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为这是他采取的观点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I think that's the kind of take that he went.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:11.52,0:20:17.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我认为这成功地表明，是的，除了事实上的反对之外，没有法律上的反对。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I think that that was successful to show that, yeah, there is no de jure objection apart from a de facto objection.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:17.52,0:20:17.66,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Yeah.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:17.66,0:20:19.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我也为此庆祝。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I celebrate that as well.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:19.54,0:20:20.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就这一点而言。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}As far as it goes.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:20.54,0:20:38.54,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但我想也许再次，这只是我对分析哲学的一种过敏反应，我遗憾的是在认识论关\N切和正当性问题上花费了如此多的精力，而我会质疑他们首先使用的知识定义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But I guess maybe again, it's just my sort of allergic reaction to analytic philosophy that I regret that so much labor is spent in epistemological concerns, in issues of justification, when I would challenge what they even are working with as a definition of knowledge in the first place.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:38.54,0:20:56.18,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，在我们能够对知识如何得到保证或知识如何得到证明进行深入讨论之前，必须有一个讨\N论，不是说普兰丁加没有，我无法做到这一点，但必须有一个讨论，并对知识的本质做出决定。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So in other words, before we could have a robust discussion of how knowledge is warranted or knowledge is justified, there has to be a discussion, not that Plantinga is not, I'm not able to do this, but there has to be a discussion of and pulling the trigger on what knowledge is to begin with.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:56.18,0:21:07.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，就在那里，我会与典型的分析哲学家有很大的不同，\N因为我会说，嗯，知识首先根本就不属于认识论的范畴。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, right there, then I'm going to be very different than, say, a typical analytic, because I'd say, well, knowledge isn't even in the epistemological category anyway in the first place.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:07.50,0:21:10.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在亚里士多德和阿奎那那里，知识是形而上学的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Knowledge in Aristotle and Aquinas is a metaphysical.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:10.32,0:21:19.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}它是智力与现实的实际形式统一，在这里，认知者在\N形式的形而上学层面上实际上成为被认知的事物。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the actual formal unity of intellect with reality, where the knower actually becomes the thing known at a formal metaphysical level.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:19.08,0:21:21.12,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不管那在世界上意味着什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Whatever in the world that means.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:21.12,0:21:29.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，这只有在亚里士多德的形而上学基础上，加上阿奎那进一步的补充，才是连贯的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, that's only coherent given this Aristotelian metaphysics with the augmentation that Aquinas goes on to make.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:29.70,0:21:33.38,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}普兰丁加，他对那个特别不感兴趣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Plantinga, he's not interested in that particularly.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:33.38,0:21:39.46,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我猜他可能甚至不相信它，但从某种意义上说这并不重要。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I suppose he probably doesn't even believe it, but it doesn't really matter in a sense.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:39.46,0:21:49.06,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}就像，嗯，我们要讨论保证和正当性，因为知识的三分法是某\N种程度上激发这项任务的动力，他认为这是某种银行业务。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's like, well, we're going to have this discussion about warrant and justification, because the tripartite view of knowledge is what sort of motivates the task with the, what he thinks is sort of banking.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:49.06,0:21:55.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}基础主义的破产和自我指涉，你知道，一些逻辑实证主义和这类东西。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}bankruptcy of foundationalism and the self -referential, you know, of some of the logical positivism and these kind of things.
Dialogue: 0,0:21:55.76,0:22:06.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}嗯，整个事情都是因为这些认识论的关切而引发的，我在想，嗯，如\N果你把形而上学做对了，这些认识论的关切一开始就不应该存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, the whole thing's teed up because of these epistemological concerns that I'm going, well, these epistemological concerns shouldn't have been there in the first place if you'd done the metaphysics right.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:06.12,0:22:11.50,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是一大堆断言，在我们短暂的时间里不需要全部辩护。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's a whole lot to just assert without having to defend it all here in our short time together.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:11.50,0:22:15.14,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}但至少一个人可以理解我在这些事情上的出发点。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}But at least a person can understand where I'm coming from with these things.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:16.16,0:22:18.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的，谢谢你，豪威博士。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Well, thank you, Dr. Howe.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:18.02,0:22:18.90,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}太棒了。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It was awesome.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:18.90,0:22:21.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我知道这次在一起的时间很短，但这是一段美好的时光。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I know this was a short time together, but it was a great time.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:21.86,0:22:23.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}希望我们将来还能再做点什么。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And hopefully we can do something again in the future.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:23.78,0:22:24.58,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我很乐意。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I'd love that.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:24.58,0:22:25.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Absolutely.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:25.20,0:22:25.86,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}非常感谢。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Thanks a lot.
Dialogue: 0,0:22:25.86,0:22:26.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}好的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}All right.