[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: 0,0:00:00.00,0:00:11.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}斯普罗尔博士，在梅耶博士的演讲之后，你在房间里提到\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Dr. Sproul, after Dr. Meyer's talk, back here in the room, you mentioned, boy, that's great
Dialogue: 0,0:00:11.76,0:00:19.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，那真是很棒的护教学。这里有一个问题，询问护教学方法的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}apologetics. And there's a question here asking an apologetical method question. Can you explain
Dialogue: 0,0:00:19.08,0:00:24.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题。你能解释一下预设护教学和古典护教学的区别吗\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the difference between presuppositional and classical apologetics? And maybe elaborate
Dialogue: 0,0:00:24.04,0:00:30.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}？或许可以详细说明一下你对梅耶博士演讲的看法，以及你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}on what you meant by even Dr. Meyer's talk and how you thought that that was a well-presented
Dialogue: 0,0:00:30.92,0:00:36.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认为那是一个在不同护教学思想体系框架内呈现得很好的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}apologetical argument within a framework of the different schools of thought of approaching
Dialogue: 0,0:00:36.75,0:00:37.75,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}护教学论证。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:00:37.75,0:00:41.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}SPROUL JR.：关于护教学，有不同的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}SPROUL JR.: There are different schools of thought with respect to apologetics. I can
Dialogue: 0,0:00:41.32,0:00:45.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}思想流派。我可以马上想到至少三种。有预设论\N{\an2\fs10\i1}think of at least three right off the bat. There's presuppositionalism, and there are
Dialogue: 0,0:00:45.91,0:00:50.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，而且预设论也有不同的流派。有跟随戈登·克拉克\N{\an2\fs10\i1}different schools of that. There's axiomatic presuppositionalism that follows Gordon Clark,
Dialogue: 0,0:00:50.91,0:00:55.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的公理预设论，然后还有跟随科尼利厄斯·范·蒂\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and then there's the other presuppositional school that follows Cornelius Van Til. And
Dialogue: 0,0:00:55.91,0:01:02.56,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}尔的另一种预设论流派。然后是第二种护教学方法，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}then there's the second approach to apologetics, which is called evidentialism. And then the
Dialogue: 0,0:01:02.56,0:01:09.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}叫做证据主义。第三种是我所支持的，叫做古典护\N{\an2\fs10\i1}third view that I espouse, which is called classical view of apologetics. There are lots
Dialogue: 0,0:01:09.27,0:01:16.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教学。克里斯，差异很多，短时间内定义它们是不公\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of differences, Chris, and it would be unfair to try to define them absolutely in the short
Dialogue: 0,0:01:16.16,0:01:22.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}平的，但预设护教学的基本区别在于，它认为\N{\an2\fs10\i1}term, but the fundamental differences in presuppositional apologetics argues this
Dialogue: 0,0:01:22.16,0:01:28.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你要得出神存在的合理结论，必须从神存在的断言\N{\an2\fs10\i1}way that the only way you can come to a sound conclusion of the existence of God is that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:28.83,0:01:35.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}开始。你必须预设神的存在，才能有一个合理的神\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you must begin with the assertion of God's existence. You must presuppose the existence
Dialogue: 0,0:01:35.76,0:01:45.87,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}存在的论证。证据主义认为这是循环论证，当然他们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God in order to have a sound argument for the existence of God. Evidentialism sees that
Dialogue: 0,0:01:45.87,0:01:52.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}没有对预设论的这种循环推理过程的批评。因为例如\N{\an2\fs10\i1}as circular, which of course they don't have that critique of presuppositions being circular
Dialogue: 0,0:01:52.76,0:01:58.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范·蒂尔对预设护教学的辩护，他不仅承认，事实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in its reasoning process. It's not something that one must prove or display, because for
Dialogue: 0,0:01:58.40,0:02:05.48,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}上他不喜欢用“承认”这个词，但他同意这是循环\N{\an2\fs10\i1}example Van Til's defense of presuppositional apologetics, he not only admits, in fact he
Dialogue: 0,0:02:05.48,0:02:11.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的，但他为此辩护说，所有论证的本质都是循环的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}wouldn't like the word admit, but he agrees that it is circular, but he says in defense
Dialogue: 0,0:02:11.80,0:02:20.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，起点和结论是相互联系的。我认为这有两个问\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of that that the nature of all arguments is circular, that the starting points and
Dialogue: 0,0:02:20.44,0:02:28.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}题。一个是，如果你承认你的证明神存在的方法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the conclusions are all bound up one with another. And what he means by that, I see
Dialogue: 0,0:02:28.03,0:02:32.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是循环的，并且在逻辑上犯了Petit Pr\N{\an2\fs10\i1}two problems with that. One is if you admit that your method of proving the existence
Dialogue: 0,0:02:32.11,0:02:40.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}incipia谬误，那么你已经放弃了你立场的合理性\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God is circular and commits the Petit Principia fallacy in logic, then you've already surrendered
Dialogue: 0,0:02:40.47,0:02:47.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，并且给了不信者一个拒绝你立场的借口，因为你在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the rationality of your position, and you've given the unbeliever an excuse to reject your
Dialogue: 0,0:02:47.91,0:02:55.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过程中犯了逻辑错误。范·蒂尔承认循环推理，但他\N{\an2\fs10\i1}position because you have made a logical violation in the process. Well, Van Til acknowledges
Dialogue: 0,0:02:55.63,0:03:00.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}辩护说，正如我提到的，这是特定类型的循环推理，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}circular reasoning, but he defends it by saying, as I mentioned, that it's a particular type
Dialogue: 0,0:03:00.91,0:03:07.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在这种情况下，他犯了第二个非正式谬误，即模\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of circular reasoning, and in this case he commits a second informal fallacy, the one
Dialogue: 0,0:03:07.63,0:03:13.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}棱两可的谬误，因为在论证中“循环”一词的意\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of equivocation, because the meaning of the term circular changes in the argument. He
Dialogue: 0,0:03:13.47,0:03:20.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}义发生了变化。他本可以同样轻松地说，所有论证本\N{\an2\fs10\i1}could have just as easily said that all arguments are by nature linear, that if I start with
Dialogue: 0,0:03:20.72,0:03:26.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}质上都是线性的，如果我从一个理性的起点开始，并\N{\an2\fs10\i1}a rational starting point and come to a rational conclusion, that's not circularity. That's
Dialogue: 0,0:03:26.55,0:03:31.63,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}得出一个理性的结论，那不是循环，而是线性。如果\N{\an2\fs10\i1}linearity. It's the same thing if I begin with an empirical premise and come to an empirical
Dialogue: 0,0:03:31.63,0:03:38.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我从一个经验前提开始，并得出一个经验结\N{\an2\b1}论，我只是保持了方法的一致性，这没有错。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}conclusion. I've just remained consistent in my methodology, and there's no sin in that.
Dialogue: 0,0:03:38.00,0:03:46.39,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}问题在于，证据主义认为我们可以提供具体的实证证\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The problem against that, evidentialism says that we present concrete empirical evidence
Dialogue: 0,0:03:46.39,0:03:54.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}据来证明神的存在，从自然和历史等方面进行论证，这\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for the existence of God, arguing from nature and so on, and also from history and the like,
Dialogue: 0,0:03:54.80,0:04:01.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}将给你一个概率结论，即使是像大卫·休谟这样\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and that that will give you a probability quotient of conclusion that would satisfy
Dialogue: 0,0:04:01.47,0:04:09.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的人也会满意，因为你达到了天文数字的概率，但\N{\an2\fs10\i1}even somebody like David Hume in terms of the astronomical probability quotient that
Dialogue: 0,0:04:09.11,0:04:15.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}即使是基于实证调查和从中得出的推论的论据，也\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you achieve, but that even those arguments based on empirical investigation and so on
Dialogue: 0,0:04:15.27,0:04:21.72,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}不能让你达到形式上的确定性，只有通过不可辩驳\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and inferences drawn from them will not get you to formal certainty, that that can only
Dialogue: 0,0:04:21.72,0:04:30.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的逻辑证明才能达到。但古典护教学认为，神的存\N{\an2\fs10\i1}be arrived at through a logical proof that is irrefutable. But classical apologetics
Dialogue: 0,0:04:30.92,0:04:36.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在可以通过显著的、理性的、形式的和令人信服的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}say that the case for the existence of God can be proven demonstrably, rationally, and
Dialogue: 0,0:04:36.95,0:04:43.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}方式证明。所以它比更注重实证的证据主义者要强\N{\an2\fs10\i1}formally, and compellingly. So it's a little stronger than evidentialists who are more
Dialogue: 0,0:04:43.76,0:04:49.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一些。但我后来所说的是，这才是护教学应该做的方\N{\an2\fs10\i1}empirically oriented. But what I said afterwards was that that's the way apologetics ought
Dialogue: 0,0:04:49.35,0:04:54.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}式。你不能只是对科学界说，你们的预设是错误的，或\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to be done. You don't just say to the scientific community, well, you're working on the wrong
Dialogue: 0,0:04:54.51,0:05:01.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}者你们的世界观是错误的。这是对的，但你必须开始向\N{\an2\fs10\i1}presuppositions or you have the wrong worldview. That's true, but you have to begin to show
Dialogue: 0,0:05:01.27,0:05:09.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}他们展示，他们从自己的证据中得出的结论在形式上\N{\an2\fs10\i1}them that the conclusions that they've drawn from their own evidence are formally invalid,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:09.51,0:05:14.07,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是无效的，这正是我今天早上听到的，我觉得非常精彩。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}which is what I heard this morning, and I thought it was magnificent.
Dialogue: 0,0:05:14.07,0:05:19.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一个后续问题是，我们如何解释为什么古典护教学不等同于理\N{\an2\fs10\i1}One follow-up question is, how do we explain why classical apologetics is not equated with
Dialogue: 0,0:05:19.79,0:05:23.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性主义？\N{\an2\fs10\i1}rationalism?
Dialogue: 0,0:05:23.51,0:05:33.16,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}又是我吗？我该如何回应这个指控呢？你知道的，如果我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}That's to me again? How do I answer the charge? Well, you know, if I espouse to be human,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:33.16,0:05:38.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}主张自己是人类，这并不意味着我接受了人本主义。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that doesn't mean I've embraced humanism. If I argue that I exist, that doesn't mean
Dialogue: 0,0:05:38.76,0:05:44.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}如果我辩称自己存在，这并不意味着我是存在主义的倡\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that I am an advocate of existentialism, and just because a woman is feminine does not
Dialogue: 0,0:05:44.35,0:05:53.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}导者，而一个女人有女性特质并不使她成为女权主义者\N{\an2\fs10\i1}make her a feminist. We want to be rational. To be rational is to think in a sound way,
Dialogue: 0,0:05:53.00,0:05:57.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。我们要理性。理性是以合理的方式思考，而理性并不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and to be rational does not mean you embrace rationalism, and at the same time you have
Dialogue: 0,0:05:57.95,0:06:03.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意味着你接受了理性主义。同时，你必须明白，在哲学探\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to understand that historically in the field of philosophical inquiry there have been three
Dialogue: 0,0:06:03.00,0:06:09.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}究领域的历史上，有三种不同类型的理性主义。笛卡尔\N{\an2\fs10\i1}distinct types of rationalism. Cartesian rationalism, where rationalism is distinguished
Dialogue: 0,0:06:09.04,0:06:15.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的理性主义，将理性主义与经验主义区分开来，最高的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}from empiricism, where the highest proof is found in the a priori categories of the mind
Dialogue: 0,0:06:15.27,0:06:22.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}证明在于心灵的先验范畴，而不是后验的经验论证。在十七\N{\an2\fs10\i1}rather than a posteriori demonstrations empirically. In that debate between the seventeenth and
Dialogue: 0,0:06:22.20,0:06:27.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}世纪和十八世纪的辩论中，第二种形式的理性主义是在启蒙\N{\an2\fs10\i1}eighteenth centuries, the second form of rationalism is the form you found in the Enlightenment
Dialogue: 0,0:06:27.39,0:06:33.83,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}运动中发现的，在那里理性主义不是与经验主义区分开\N{\an2\fs10\i1}where the rationalism was distinguished not from empiricism, but from revelation, where
Dialogue: 0,0:06:33.83,0:06:40.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}来，而是与启示区分开来，理性被提升到高于超自然启\N{\an2\fs10\i1}reason was elevated above the trustworthiness of supernatural revelation. Then the third
Dialogue: 0,0:06:40.11,0:06:46.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}示的可信度。然后，第三种理性主义是十九世纪黑格尔的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}kind of rationalism is the Hegelian rationalism of the nineteenth century, where reason is
Dialogue: 0,0:06:46.32,0:06:52.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理性主义，理性被提升到大写的R，成为最高的现实，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}elevated to the capital R, where it is the highest reality, where reason itself becomes
Dialogue: 0,0:06:52.32,0:06:56.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理性本身成为神。所以当你称我为理性主义者时，我想\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God. So when you call me a rationalist, I want to know what kind of rationalist you're
Dialogue: 0,0:06:56.27,0:07:03.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}知道你称我是哪种理性主义者，我会否认这三种，并\N{\an2\fs10\i1}calling me, and I would deny all three of those and would say I'm just trying to be
Dialogue: 0,0:07:03.55,0:07:12.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说我只是试图保持理性。我希望这能回答你的问题。除此之\N{\an2\fs10\i1}rational. I hope that answers it. The alternative to that is everything outside of the category
Dialogue: 0,0:07:12.35,0:07:21.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}外，理性之外的一切是什么？非理性。我们不想要那样。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the rational is what? Irrational. We don't want that.
Dialogue: 0,0:07:21.79,0:07:27.51,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}在我们讨论经典观点之前，让我提到另一种护教学的方\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Before we get to the classical view, let me mention another approach to apologetics, which
Dialogue: 0,0:07:27.51,0:07:36.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}法，这种方法在改革宗神学中占据了压倒性的多数，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}has become the overwhelming majority report within Reformed theology, and that is the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:36.20,0:07:42.27,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这就是所谓的预设护教学。预设护教学有不止一种形式\N{\an2\fs10\i1}view of apologetics known as presuppositional apologetics. There's more than one variety
Dialogue: 0,0:07:42.27,0:07:48.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，有一种是由戈登·克拉克倡导的公理预设论，但更为\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of it. There's axiomatic presuppositionalism that was championed by Gordon Clark, but the
Dialogue: 0,0:07:48.92,0:07:56.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}流行的预设论是由康奈利厄斯·范泰尔在费城的威斯敏\N{\an2\fs10\i1}more popular view of presuppositionalism is that that was developed by Cornelius Van Til
Dialogue: 0,0:07:56.76,0:08:01.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}斯特神学院发展起来的，他在那里辛勤工作了几十年\N{\an2\fs10\i1}late of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, where he labored for several
Dialogue: 0,0:08:01.44,0:08:10.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，并在这一领域发表了许多著作，他确实是基督信仰\N{\an2\fs10\i1}decades and who has published much in this field, and who was indeed a genuine giant
Dialogue: 0,0:08:10.04,0:08:19.04,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}中的一位真正的巨人。我与约翰·格斯特纳和林赛合\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and titan of the Christian faith. The book that I co-authored with John Gerstner and
Dialogue: 0,0:08:19.04,0:08:29.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}著的《经典护教学》一书，其中三分之一的内容是对预设\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Lindsay, entitled Classical Apologetics, includes in one-third of that book a comprehensive
Dialogue: 0,0:08:29.35,0:08:36.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}论的全面批判。因此，由于我、阿特·林斯利和约翰·格\N{\an2\fs10\i1}critique of presuppositionalism. So because of that book that Art Lindsley and John Gerstner
Dialogue: 0,0:08:36.55,0:08:44.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}斯特纳合著的那本书，我们在改革宗阵营内就首选\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and I authored, we have become engaged in ongoing dialogue within the Reformed camp
Dialogue: 0,0:08:44.71,0:08:54.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的护教学方法展开了持续的对话。范泰尔博士用英语写作\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with respect to what is the preferred approach to doing apologetics. And Dr. Mantill, having
Dialogue: 0,0:08:54.55,0:09:02.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，尽管这不是他的母语，他是荷兰人，有时他的写作\N{\an2\fs10\i1}written in the English language, which was not his native tongue, he was a native of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:02.59,0:09:09.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}风格有些难以理解。因此，不仅他的批评者在他实际\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Holland, sometimes writes in a style that is somewhat difficult to follow. And because
Dialogue: 0,0:09:09.84,0:09:17.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所说的内容上存在分歧，他的一些最著名的学生在如何解\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of that, not only do his critics differ among themselves as to what he was actually saying,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:17.67,0:09:24.47,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}释他的问题上也存在分歧。他的一些学生将范泰尔解释\N{\an2\fs10\i1}but also some of his most noteworthy students differ in how they interpret him. Some of
Dialogue: 0,0:09:24.47,0:09:31.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为信仰主义者，而我认为他最有能力的解释者，已故的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}his students interpret Mantill as a fitteist, whereas I think his most able interpreter,
Dialogue: 0,0:09:31.96,0:09:40.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}格雷戈里·邦森，并不认为范泰尔是信仰主义者，而是\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the late Gregory Bonson, did not see Mantill as a fitteist, but saw him arguing a rational
Dialogue: 0,0:09:40.28,0:09:43.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认为他在为神的存在提出理性的论据。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}case for the existence of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:09:43.28,0:09:47.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我现在不打算详细讨论预设论，只是作为介绍\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And I'm not going to get into a lot of discussion right now about presuppositionalism, only
Dialogue: 0,0:09:47.84,0:09:57.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说，预设论的方法是这样的：为了得出神存在的结\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to say by way of introduction that the presuppositional approach says this, that in order to arrive
Dialogue: 0,0:09:57.52,0:10:08.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}论，为了证明神的存在，你必须从你的主要前\N{\an2\fs10\i1}at the conclusion that God exists, in order to prove the existence of God, you must start
Dialogue: 0,0:10:08.11,0:10:17.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}提开始，你的第一个前提是神存在的预设。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with your primary premise, your first premise, being the presupposition of the existence
Dialogue: 0,0:10:17.71,0:10:25.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}换句话说，除非你从预设神的存在开始，否\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God. In other words, that unless you start by presupposing the existence of God, you
Dialogue: 0,0:10:25.59,0:10:31.91,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}则你永远不会得出神存在的结论。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}will never get to the conclusion of the existence of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:10:31.91,0:10:39.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}当然，针对这种思维方式的直接反对意见是，从\N{\an2\fs10\i1}Now, of course, the immediate objection that is raised against that form of thinking is
Dialogue: 0,0:10:39.32,0:10:47.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}神存在的论点开始，然后推理得出神存在的结论，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that that procedure of starting with the thesis that God exists and then reasoning to the
Dialogue: 0,0:10:47.96,0:11:01.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这涉及一种经典的逻辑谬误，称为「预设前提谬误\N{\an2\fs10\i1}conclusion that God exists involves a classic fallacy of logic called the Petitio Principii
Dialogue: 0,0:11:01.08,0:11:09.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}」或「循环论证谬误」。循环论证谬误发生在结论\N{\an2\fs10\i1}fallacy or the fallacy of circular reasoning. And the fallacy of circular reasoning occurs
Dialogue: 0,0:11:09.08,0:11:17.55,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}已经出现在你的前提之一中。看，这结论已经在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when the conclusion appears already in one of your premises. See, that the conclusion
Dialogue: 0,0:11:17.55,0:11:25.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这里被假定了。所以，这是一种无效的推理方式\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is already assumed up here. And so, this is a faulty form of reasoning which invalidates
Dialogue: 0,0:11:25.59,0:11:33.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，使论证无效，这也是对预设护教学提出的主要反对意见。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}an argument, and that's been the chief objection raised against presuppositional apologetics.
Dialogue: 0,0:11:33.59,0:11:39.79,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}然而，范泰尔博士对此的辩护是，因为他当然知道\N{\an2\fs10\i1}However, the defense that Dr. Van Til gave to that, because he was certainly aware that
Dialogue: 0,0:11:39.79,0:11:52.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这种方法会受到这样的指责，他辩护说所有的推理都\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that charge would be made against this approach, he defended it by saying that all reasoning
Dialogue: 0,0:11:52.67,0:12:02.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是循环进行的。因为它的起点、中间地带和结论都\N{\an2\fs10\i1}moves in a circular fashion. Insofar as its starting point, its middle ground, and its
Dialogue: 0,0:12:02.64,0:12:12.23,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是相互关联的，也就是说，如果你从一个理性的前提\N{\an2\fs10\i1}conclusions are all involved with each other, which is to say, if you start with a rational
Dialogue: 0,0:12:12.23,0:12:21.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}开始，并以一致的理性方式推理，你的结论也会是理\N{\an2\fs10\i1}premise and you reason consistently in a rational way, your conclusion will be of a rational
Dialogue: 0,0:12:21.11,0:12:23.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}sort.
Dialogue: 0,0:12:23.52,0:12:32.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}因此，范泰尔博士用这种定义为他的循环推理辩护\N{\an2\fs10\i1}And so, with that kind of definition, Dr. Van Til justifies his use of circular reasoning
Dialogue: 0,0:12:32.40,0:12:39.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，说这与其他人的推理没有什么不同，因为所有\N{\an2\fs10\i1}saying that it's no different from anybody else because all reasoning is circular in
Dialogue: 0,0:12:39.08,0:12:48.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的推理在这个意义上都是循环的。我们这些不采用这种护\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that sense. Well, those of us who don't adopt this approach to apologetics find in the justification
Dialogue: 0,0:12:48.11,0:12:55.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}教学方法的人认为，为循环推理辩护实际上犯\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for circular reasoning the commission of a second fallacy that is as deadly as the
Dialogue: 0,0:12:55.35,0:13:02.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}了第二个谬误，这个谬误和第一个一样致命。第一个\N{\an2\fs10\i1}first one. The first fallacy is the fallacy of circular reasoning, which in classic categories
Dialogue: 0,0:13:02.71,0:13:10.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}谬误是循环推理的谬误，在经典逻辑范畴中，这使论\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of logic invalidates an argument. The justification for using circular reasoning involves the
Dialogue: 0,0:13:10.00,0:13:16.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}证无效。为使用循环推理辩护涉及第二个谬误，即词义混\N{\an2\fs10\i1}second fallacy, which is the fallacy of equivocation, where a term changes its meaning in the middle
Dialogue: 0,0:13:16.91,0:13:22.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}淆的谬误，在论证过程中词义发生变化。当他通\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the argument. When he justifies circular reasoning by saying that all reasoning is
Dialogue: 0,0:13:22.96,0:13:27.96,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}过说所有推理在某种意义上都是循环的，即起点和\N{\an2\fs10\i1}circular in the sense that its starting point and its conclusion are of the similar sort,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:27.96,0:13:36.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}结论是相似的来为循环推理辩护时，这并不是循环推\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that's not what is meant by circular reasoning. We've all understood that a rational argument,
Dialogue: 0,0:13:36.20,0:13:43.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理的意思。我们都明白，如果一个理性论证要合理，它\N{\an2\fs10\i1}if it's going to be rational, must be consistently rational throughout. And why call that a circle
Dialogue: 0,0:13:43.11,0:13:48.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}必须始终如一地理性。为什么称之为循环，而实\N{\an2\fs10\i1}when in fact it's linear? You begin with a rational premise, you use another rational
Dialogue: 0,0:13:48.20,0:13:54.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}际上它是线性的？你从一个理性前提开始，使用另一\N{\an2\fs10\i1}premise, and you move and advance to a conclusion that is of a rational sort without running
Dialogue: 0,0:13:54.03,0:14:01.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}个理性前提，然后推进到一个理性的结论，而不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}around in a circle. Now, granted, there is a presupposition in rational argument, the
Dialogue: 0,0:14:01.44,0:14:08.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是在圈子里打转。诚然，理性论证中有一个预设，即理\N{\an2\fs10\i1}presupposition of reason, the presupposition of the law of non-contradiction, the presupposition
Dialogue: 0,0:14:08.67,0:14:13.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}性的预设，非矛盾律的预设，因果律的预设，以\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of causality, and the other presuppositions that I've been setting before you in this
Dialogue: 0,0:14:13.40,0:14:19.32,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}及我在这堂课上向你们展示的其他预设，包括感\N{\an2\fs10\i1}class, including the basic reliability of sense perception and the analogical use of
Dialogue: 0,0:14:19.32,0:14:27.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}官知觉的基本可靠性和语言的类比使用。现在，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}language. Now, those who defend Dr. Van Til here, like Greg Bonson, are saying really
Dialogue: 0,0:14:27.67,0:14:34.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}那些为范泰尔博士辩护的人，如格雷格·邦森，说\N{\an2\fs10\i1}what Van Til is getting at here is something a little deeper than a superficial exercise
Dialogue: 0,0:14:34.88,0:14:46.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}范泰尔真正要表达的是比表面上的循环推理更深\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in circular reasoning. What he's saying is that if you want to assume rationality, to
Dialogue: 0,0:14:46.08,0:14:55.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}层次的东西。他说，如果你想假设理性，甚至假\N{\an2\fs10\i1}even assume rationality involves you out of necessity of presupposing the existence of
Dialogue: 0,0:14:55.03,0:15:04.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}设理性本身就需要预设神的存在，因为没有神就没\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God, because without God there is no foundation for rationality. There's no foundation for
Dialogue: 0,0:15:04.03,0:15:09.84,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}有理性的基础。没有基础去信任因果律，没有基础\N{\an2\fs10\i1}trusting the law of causality. There's no foundation for trusting the basic reliability
Dialogue: 0,0:15:09.84,0:15:15.78,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}去信任感官知觉的基本可靠性。因此，即使你不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of sense perception. And so, even though you don't admit it, when you advocate reason,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:15.78,0:15:22.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}承认，当你倡导理性时，你已经在假设理性的基础\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you are already assuming the ground of that reason, which is God Himself. So, let's just
Dialogue: 0,0:15:22.08,0:15:28.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，即神自己。所以，让我们坦诚地说，任何预设理性\N{\an2\fs10\i1}be open and above board and say anybody who presupposes rationality is therefore presupposing
Dialogue: 0,0:15:28.64,0:15:35.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的人因此也预设了神的存在，他们只是在掩饰这一点。我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}the existence of God, and they're simply disguising that. And so, I feel the weight of that because
Dialogue: 0,0:15:35.11,0:15:42.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}感受到这一点的分量，因为我们作为经典主义者确\N{\an2\fs10\i1}we certainly agree as classicists that it is true that if rationality is to be meaningful,
Dialogue: 0,0:15:42.67,0:15:48.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}实同意，如果理性要有意义，如果我所谈论的这些\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and if these presuppositions of epistemology that I'm talking about are sound, then they
Dialogue: 0,0:15:48.76,0:15:53.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}认识论的预设是正确的，那么它们就呼唤神的存在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}scream for the existence of God. But that's exactly what classical apologetics is trying
Dialogue: 0,0:15:53.08,0:16:00.08,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}。但这正是经典护教学试图证明的，如果你想要\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to prove, that if you want to be rational, you've got to affirm the existence of God,
Dialogue: 0,0:16:00.08,0:16:05.67,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}理性，你必须肯定神的存在，因为你所预设的理性\N{\an2\fs10\i1}because the very reason that you're presupposing demands the existence of God. But we have
Dialogue: 0,0:16:05.67,0:16:11.20,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}本身就要求神的存在。但我们必须向人们展示这一\N{\an2\fs10\i1}to show people that, and we don't think it's a good strategy just to muddle the argument
Dialogue: 0,0:16:11.20,0:16:16.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}点，我们不认为仅仅通过说你必须在论证的前提\N{\an2\fs10\i1}by saying, well, you have to start with the existence of God in your premise, in your
Dialogue: 0,0:16:16.00,0:16:20.88,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}中以神的存在为起点来证明它是一个好的策略，因\N{\an2\fs10\i1}argument in order to approve it, because then the other guy says, well, I'm going to start
Dialogue: 0,0:16:20.88,0:16:27.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为那样的话，另一个人会说，我将不以神的前提\N{\an2\fs10\i1}without the premise of God, and I'm going to end up in meaninglessness. Okay? And now
Dialogue: 0,0:16:27.03,0:16:34.03,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}为起点，我将以无意义为结论。这样你就得到了一个平\N{\an2\fs10\i1}what you have is a tie. And as they say, that's like kissing your sister, and we're not interested
Dialogue: 0,0:16:34.03,0:16:38.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}局。正如他们所说，这就像亲吻你的妹妹，我们对这种体验不感兴趣。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in that kind of experience.
Dialogue: 0,0:16:38.40,0:16:46.40,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所以，坦白说，除了这些逻辑错误之外，我对预设论最大的反\N{\an2\fs10\i1}So, the biggest objection that I have, frankly, besides these logical errors to presuppositionalism
Dialogue: 0,0:16:46.44,0:16:53.44,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}对意见是，除了神自己，没有人能从神开始。除非你\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is that nobody starts with God except God. You can't start in your mind with God, the
Dialogue: 0,0:16:55.71,0:17:02.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}是神，否则你不能在你的心中从神开始，拥有对神的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}knowledge of God, unless you're God. Where we say you start is with self-consciousness,
Dialogue: 0,0:17:02.59,0:17:08.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}知识。我们说你开始的地方是自我意识，从自我意识\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and from self-consciousness you move to the existence of God. You don't start with God
Dialogue: 0,0:17:08.76,0:17:15.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你可以转向神的存在。你不能从神的意识开始然后转向\N{\an2\fs10\i1}consciousness and move to the existence of the self. By necessity, human beings thinking
Dialogue: 0,0:17:16.07,0:17:21.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}自我的存在。必然地，人类用人类的头脑思考，必须\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with human minds must start with where they are, with their brain. Now, the objection
Dialogue: 0,0:17:21.52,0:17:28.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}从他们所在的地方开始，从他们的大脑开始。对此的反对\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that comes to that is that we are capitulating to secular, pagan ideas of thought. I remember
Dialogue: 0,0:17:29.31,0:17:35.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意见是我们屈服于世俗、异教的思想。我记得大约三十\N{\an2\fs10\i1}debating this point with one of the advocates of presuppositionalism in a public meeting
Dialogue: 0,0:17:35.71,0:17:42.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}年前在一次公开会议上与一位预设论的倡导者辩论这个问\N{\an2\fs10\i1}almost thirty years ago, where this particular professor was very exercised when I said that
Dialogue: 0,0:17:42.80,0:17:48.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}题，当时这位教授非常激动，因为我说你必须从自我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}you have to start with self-consciousness, and he said that that's unbiblical because
Dialogue: 0,0:17:48.28,0:17:55.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意识开始，他说这是不符合圣经的，因为我假设了自\N{\an2\fs10\i1}that what I'm doing is assuming the autonomy of the self rather than the sovereignty of
Dialogue: 0,0:17:58.35,0:18:05.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我的自主性而不是神的主权，这正是亚当和夏娃在伊甸园\N{\an2\fs10\i1}God, and that this is exactly what Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden when they rebelled
Dialogue: 0,0:18:06.35,0:18:13.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}里反叛神时所做的，是一种罪恶、堕落、腐败的推理方\N{\an2\fs10\i1}against God, and that it is a sinful, fallen, corrupt way to start reasoning by beginning
Dialogue: 0,0:18:14.76,0:18:21.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}式，从自我而不是从神开始。我对他说，我当然同\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with the self rather than with God. And I said to him, I would certainly agree that
Dialogue: 0,0:18:21.43,0:18:28.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}意，如果我推理的第一个假设，我的主要前提是自我的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}if my first supposition, my primary premise in reasoning was the autonomy of myself, that
Dialogue: 0,0:18:29.43,0:18:36.43,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}自主性，那么我确实会犯你所说的一切错误，我确实已\N{\an2\fs10\i1}I would be guilty of everything you say, that I would be indeed already embracing paganism,
Dialogue: 0,0:18:36.68,0:18:43.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}经接受了异教，并且如果我真的一致地这样做，最终会导致自\N{\an2\fs10\i1}and I could only end up if I were indeed consistent with the deification of the self and the rejection
Dialogue: 0,0:18:45.26,0:18:51.76,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我神化和拒绝神。但我说我们不是从自我的自主性开始，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God. But I said we don't start with the autonomy of the self, but simply the consciousness
Dialogue: 0,0:18:51.76,0:18:57.64,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}而只是从自我意识开始，我提醒我的朋友，奥古斯丁自己\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of the self, and I reminded my friend that Augustine himself said that with self-consciousness
Dialogue: 0,0:18:57.68,0:19:03.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}说过，自我意识总是立即伴随着有限性的意识，当你意识到\N{\an2\fs10\i1}always comes immediately an awareness of finitude, that the moment that you're aware of yourself
Dialogue: 0,0:19:03.95,0:19:09.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}自己是一个自我时，你就知道你不是神。这也是加尔\N{\an2\fs10\i1}as a self, you know you're not God. That's what Calvin argued at the same time, and I'm
Dialogue: 0,0:19:09.71,0:19:16.71,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}文同时所论证的，我说自主性的观念，即你是自己的法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}saying that the idea of autonomy, where you're a law unto yourself, is not contained in the
Dialogue: 0,0:19:20.35,0:19:27.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}律，并不包含在自我意识的观念中。如果是这样，从这一点开始确实是罪恶的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}idea of self-consciousness. If it were, it would indeed be sinful to start at that point.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:28.04,0:19:32.80,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}我们所说的是，自我意识的开始是受造之物的本性。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}What we're saying is that the beginning with self-consciousness is a given to creatureliness.
Dialogue: 0,0:19:32.80,0:19:38.28,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}这是任何人开始思考的唯一地方。你不能从他的思想\N{\an2\fs10\i1}It's the only place any self can start with their thinking. You cannot start in your mind
Dialogue: 0,0:19:38.28,0:19:44.02,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}、我的思想或神的思想开始。你唯一能开始的是你自\N{\an2\fs10\i1}with his thought, or with my thought, or with God's thought. The only thing you start with
Dialogue: 0,0:19:44.02,0:19:50.59,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}己的自我意识，从那里出发，因为你是一个自我，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is your own self-awareness, and from there you move because you are a self, and you will
Dialogue: 0,0:19:50.59,0:19:55.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}你很快就会发现你根本不是自主的。这就是我们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}soon discover that you are not autonomous at all. And that's what we're saying, that
Dialogue: 0,0:19:55.00,0:20:00.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}所说的，如果你从自我意识开始，并且正确推理，\N{\an2\fs10\i1}if you begin with self-consciousness, and you reason correctly, so far from ending in
Dialogue: 0,0:20:00.92,0:20:07.92,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}远非以自主结束，你实际上会必然地肯定神的存在。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}autonomy, you will in fact end by necessarily affirming the existence of God.
Dialogue: 0,0:20:08.47,0:20:14.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}预设论者的恐惧在于，若以理性和经验来辩论，我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}The fear among presuppositionalists is that in arguing rationally and empirically that
Dialogue: 0,0:20:14.68,0:20:21.68,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}们会向异教世界让步太多，而经典主义者对预设\N{\an2\fs10\i1}we give too much away to the pagan world, and of course the fear of the classicists
Dialogue: 0,0:20:22.64,0:20:28.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}论者的恐惧则是他们让步太多。他们给了异教徒不\N{\an2\fs10\i1}for the presuppositionists is they give too much away. They give the pagan an excuse for
Dialogue: 0,0:20:28.52,0:20:35.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}相信神存在的借口，因为异教徒可以看到他们的方法\N{\an2\fs10\i1}not believing in the existence of God, because the pagan can see that their approach violates
Dialogue: 0,0:20:35.52,0:20:42.52,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}违反了理性的原则。但我们都同意，构建神的存在\N{\an2\fs10\i1}principles of rationality. But one thing we all agree on is that the construction of the
Dialogue: 0,0:20:43.35,0:20:50.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}无疑是建立一个人生命和世界观的最重要前提，我们\N{\an2\fs10\i1}existence of God is certainly the most important single premise in the building of a person's
Dialogue: 0,0:20:51.76,0:20:57.11,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}知道，根据《罗马书》第一章，异教徒所做的第\N{\an2\fs10\i1}life and worldview, and that we know that what the pagan does, according to Romans 1,
Dialogue: 0,0:20:57.11,0:21:03.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}一件事就是否认神的永能和神性。然后他的心思\N{\an2\fs10\i1}is that the first lie that he embraces is the denial of the eternal power and deity
Dialogue: 0,0:21:03.35,0:21:09.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}变得昏暗，越是聪明，他就越远离从自然中获得\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God. And then his mind becomes darkened, and the more brilliant he is, the further
Dialogue: 0,0:21:09.00,0:21:16.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的对神的初步认识。因此，我们都同意在护教学\N{\an2\fs10\i1}away he moves from that first awareness of God that he gets in nature. And so we all
Dialogue: 0,0:21:16.00,0:21:23.00,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}中早早确立神的存在至关重要。这是必须首先确立\N{\an2\fs10\i1}agree in the supreme importance of establishing early on in our apologetic the existence
Dialogue: 0,0:21:23.28,0:21:27.95,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}的事情。我们同意神在存在的秩序中是第一位的\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of God. That's the first thing that has to be established. We agree that God is first
Dialogue: 0,0:21:27.95,0:21:34.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}，但在认识的过程中，争议在于什么是首先的。我\N{\an2\fs10\i1}in the order of being, obviously, but the disagreement is what comes first in the process
Dialogue: 0,0:21:34.35,0:21:41.35,Default,,0,0,0,,{\an2\b1}们说神在存在的秩序中是第一位的，但在认识的秩序中不是第一位的。\N{\an2\fs10\i1}of knowing. We say God is first in the order of being, but not first in the order of knowing.