大家好，欢迎来到「Council of Trent」播客。 Hey everyone, welcome to the Council of Trent podcast.
我是你们的主持人、Catholic Answe rs 的护教者兼讲员 Trent Horn。 I'm your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn.
我想告诉大家，我在 Catholic Answe rs 护教学学院推出了一门关于神的存在的新课程。 I just want to let you know I have a new course on the existence of God at the Catholic Answers School of Apologetics.
如果你还没去过，真的该去看看，schoolofapologetics.com。 If you haven't been there yet, you really need to go check it out, schoolofapologetics.com.
他们那里还有我最喜欢的一门课程。 They've got probably my favorite course there.
并不是我自己教的课——不然就太自恋了；那是 Jimmy Akin 的「护教学新手指南」。 It's not one of my courses because that would be narcissistic; it is Jimmy Akin's Beginner's Guide to Apologetics.
这课程实在太棒了，因为 Jimmy 真是最厉害的人。 It's just awesome because Jimmy is the best.
而且，说不定 Jimmy 是教会从未来派来的机器人，什么都懂。 In fact, Jimmy is probably a robot the Church sent from the future to help us because he knows everything.
不过，你们可以上 schoolofapologetics.com， But go to schoolofapologetics.com,
看看我新开的「神存在的证据」课程，因为今天的话 题也有点关联，我想聊聊基督徒有时会把神给弄错。 check out my new course Evidence for God, because today, also, this ties into that a little bit, I want to talk about how Christians sometimes get God wrong.
在宗教哲学家当中有形形色色的观点。 There are different views among philosophers of religion.
我们该如何理解神呢？ How do we understand God?
所以，今天这集的标题是「为什么中世纪的神能打败现代的神」。 And so, the title of today's episode is How the Medieval God Can Beat Up the Modern God.
这是什么意思呢？ What does that mean?
我们常觉得中世纪的哲学家生活在「黑暗时代」，其实我很不喜欢这个说法。 We often think of medieval philosophers as living in the Dark Ages, and I hate that phrase, by the way.
我记得这是文艺复兴时期的作家彼特拉克提出来的说法，挺荒谬的。 I think it was Petrarch, a Renaissance writer, who came up with it, which is silly.
当时是基督的光普照世界的时候；那是基督教世界。 It was the time when the light of Christ shined in the world; it was Christendom.
在中世纪期间，各种科技、艺术和文学都取得了进步。 During the medieval period, there were all kinds of advances in technology, the arts, and literature.
总之，这可以留到别的节目去讲，但中世纪哲学家 在了解神的本质上提供了很多精深且复杂的看法。 In any case, that's a topic for another show, but medieval philosophers gave us a lot of great insights into understanding who God is, and it's very technical and sophisticated.
讽刺的是，很多现代对于神的看法，其实比起中世纪哲学家还要肤浅简单得多。 Ironically, many modern views of God are much less sophisticated and dumbed down compared to medieval philosophers.
当现代人对神的看法过于简化、不够深刻、或没有充分思考，就很容易在讨论无神论时出 问题。无神论者也能根据这些不完整的神观念，对神论和对神的信仰提出严厉的质疑。 When you have these modern views of God that are dumbed down or not as sophisticated or not as fully thought out, you can get into trouble when you argue about atheism, and atheists can put forward serious objections to theism, to belief in God, based on these understandings of God that are really incomplete.
所以，今天我请到了 Pat Flynn 来帮我们深入探讨这个话题。 So, to help us dive into that today, I've invited Pat Flynn onto the show.
Pat 的网站是 chroniclesofstrength.com。 Pat is at chroniclesofstrength.com.
他做了很多播客，谈哲学、神学，还教你如何进行壶铃锻炼。 He's got a lot of podcasting, philosophy, theology, and how to get your kettlebell workouts in.
Pat，欢迎来到这个播客！ Pat, welcome to the podcast!
Ben Horn，能来这里真是荣幸。 Ben Horn, it is a pleasure to be here.
谢谢你邀请我上节目。 Thank you for having me on.
好，在开始之前，你能先跟我们的听众简单介绍一下你自己吗？ Alright, well before we get started, though, can you tell our listeners just a little bit more about yourself?
好的，好的，当然可以。 Yeah, yeah, sure.
那我就长话短说吧？ What's the condensed version here?
嗯，我主要在网上做与信仰和健康相关的事业。 Well, I’m in an online business, faith, and health.
我在学术上的背景是经济学和哲学，不过很多人认识我是因为我在线上分享壶铃锻炼。 I guess my backgrounds academically are in economics and philosophy, but a lot of people know me for sharing online kettlebell workouts.
所以这有点奇妙；我算是一只脚踏进各种不同的领域。 So it’s kind of weird; I kind of have a foot in a lot of different worlds.
我现在是 Catholic Answers 的隶属护教者，这对我来说是莫大的荣誉。 I am now an affiliate apologist with Catholic Answers, which is a great honor.
我曾是一个无神论者和自然主义者，然后被伟大的古典神论传统所说服。 I am a former atheist and naturalist who was convinced by the great classical theistic tradition.
事实上，正是这种对神的特定模式和观点，让我从 自然主义走向神论，最后又进到了公教，对吧？ In fact, it was this particular model and view of God that moved me away from naturalism to theism and then eventually to Catholicism, right?
所以，正是关于神的哲学对我来说成了走向信仰的重要桥梁。 So it was really the philosophy of God that served as a significant bridge to religion for me.
我想，这大概是我背景里最切合今天对话的部分。 So I think maybe that’s the most relevant aspect of my background, probably for the conversation we’re going to have.
好，那让我们来谈谈古典神论吧。 Yeah, well let’s jump into that classical theism.
很多人可能不太懂，但我觉得这就说明了一个很大的差别。 A lot of people may not understand that, but I think that that’s the big difference.
当我们谈到中世纪的神，我们说的是一个古典传统，而不只是基督教的。 When we talk about the medieval God, we’re talking about a classical tradition, not just a Christian one.
当然，也有公教哲学家像阿奎那和圣文德，但也有犹太哲 学家，比如迈蒙尼德，还有穆斯林哲学家像伊本·西那。 By the way, we have obviously Catholic philosophers like Aquinas and Bonaventure, but also there are Jewish philosophers as well; Maimonides would be one of them, and Muslim philosophers like Avicenna.
虽然他们在不少关键问题上彼此看法不同，但他们都持有一种非常古典的神观。 These are all, while they differed in important ways from each other, they all held to a very classical view of God.
所以我想谈谈古典神论，和公教哲学家 Brian Davies 所说的「人格主义神论」之间的区别。 So I want to talk about classical theism versus what the Catholic philosopher Brian Davies calls theistic personalism.
我认为最大的差别在于，对于很多人来说，分享神的存在或与无神论者辩论时 的困扰，常常是因为许多现代人错误地把神看作一个与其他事物并列的存在。 I think the biggest difference here, that for a lot of people, what is so hard about sharing the existence of God or debating with atheists today, is that many modern people erroneously think God is a being among others.
于是，如果我们想证明神存在，就要像证明其他某个实体存在一样去搜集证据。 Then if we want to prove God exists, we have to assemble evidence in the same way we would prove any other individual being exists.
你想证明大脚怪存在吗？ You want to prove Bigfoot?
那就带着相机去找。 Go out with your cameras.
你想证明希格斯玻色子？ You want to prove the Higgs boson?
那就启动做科学实验的机器。 Turn on the machine that does the scientific experiments.
也就是说，他们觉得神只是所有存在者之一，我们要用望远镜或显微镜才能找着祂。 You know, they think God is just one being among all these other beings, and we’ve got to do our telescopes and microscopes to find Him.
这就代表一种很现代的神观：把神当作众多存在中的一个，让无神论者 能用不该用于神的方式来判断祂；而古典的看法则是神就是存在本身。 So that’s a very modern view of God: that He’s a being among others, which allows atheists to judge God in a different way than He should be judged, whereas the classical view would be that God just is being.
但这并不是泛神论。 But that’s not pantheism.
给我们解释一下吧！ Break this down for us!
对，神就是存在本身；其他一切都是透过分有而存在。 Yeah, God is being itself; everything else is being through participation.
所以当我们说神就是独立存在的本身，并不是在说所有存在 的事物都是神，因为我们还要承认存在的不同方式，对吧？ So we’re not saying that everything that exists is God when we say that God is subsistent existence itself, because we’re committed to modes of being, right?
我们的存在方式和神的存在方式不同，所以要先把这 一点说明白，才能避免泛神论或万有在神论的误解。 Our mode of being is distinct from God’s mode of being, so that’s important to get clarity on that up front to avoid a sort of pantheism or panentheism.
不过，Trent，你说得没错，古典神论的传统的确既深邃又宽广。 But no, classical theism, as you note, Trent, is both very deep and very wide in its tradition.
我会说它可以一直追溯到柏拉图，他把终极的神性和 「至善之形」联系起来，先不谈他的造物主，对吧？ I would argue it goes all the way back to Plato, where he sort of identifies the ultimate deity, if you will, with the form of the Good, putting his Demiurge aside, right?
然后这种思想一路传承下来，当然也进入了基督信仰。 And then it’s sort of developed right on down through the line, certainly into Christianity.
奥古斯丁、波伊修、阿奎那常被视为这一系列思想发展的重要推动 者，不过在印度教、伊斯兰教和犹太教当中，也有古典神论者。 Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas is often seen as sort of the great champion of these developments, but you have classical theists in Hinduism, in Islam, and in Judaism.
因此它绝不限于基督信仰里。 So it’s certainly not restricted to Christianity.
事实上，许多新教徒也是古典神论者。 In fact, many Protestants are classical theists.
我要声明，这并不是一个公教对新教的争论。 I want to make sure that this is not a Catholic versus Protestant debate.
我的意思是，它在新教改革者当中非常广受认同，并且持续了好几个世纪。 I mean, this is very popular even among the Protestant Reformers and going forward for several centuries.
较新的观点——如果我们要做个比较的话，那我们这里到底指的差异是什么？ It’s much more recent and, I guess, if we had to make a comparison—like what do we mean by the difference here?
举例来说，我们要比较的其中一端是圣托马斯·阿奎那，但就连加尔文和 其他新教改革者也认为神——我们待会儿会谈到这些属性——是无限的。 To put it in concrete terms, like what we’re comparing would be St. Thomas Aquinas, but even Calvin and other Protestant Reformers had this view that God— and we’ll break down these attributes here shortly—God is infinite.
祂不是和其他存在并列的一个，也不是众人当中的一个。 He is not a being among others; He is not a person among other persons.
祂虽然有理智和意志，但祂就是存在本身。 He has intellect and will, but He is being itself.
祂是存在的根基。 He is the ground of being.
任何事物之所以存在，都是因为它分享了神作为存在之本这一事实，是神赐予它存在。 Anything that exists exists because it participates in the fact that God is being, and God gives it being.
所以神就是存在。 So God is being.
祂是单纯的；祂并非由诸多部分组合而成。 He is simple; He’s not composed of parts.
祂超越时间，祂是必然的，祂不变；神不会改变。 He is timeless, He is necessary, He is immutable; God does not change.
结合这些要点来看，就会有一个非常坚实的神观；相较之下，一些较为现 代的概念——听众或许熟悉的——例如威廉·莱恩·克雷格对神的看法。 So when you have all of these points together, you have a very robust view of God, whereas a more modern conception— to give a few examples our listeners might be familiar with—would be like how William Lane Craig views God.
当然，我认为威廉·莱恩·克雷格在自然神学里提出了很多精彩的论证。 Now, I think William Lane Craig has put out a lot of great arguments in natural theology.
我很欣赏他提出的这些观点。 I appreciate them.
在其他公教人士不支持时，我却一直坚定支持卡拉姆宇宙论证。 I am a staunch defender of the Kalam cosmological argument when other Catholics are not.
我觉得他也为此提出了不少有力的论据。 I think he has actually put some good arguments out there for it as well.
还有理查德·斯温伯恩——我真是太喜欢他了！ Or Richard Swinburne—sweet Richard!
理查德·斯温伯恩，一位东正教哲学家，是非常优秀的宗教哲学家。 Richard Swinburne, Eastern Orthodox philosopher, is a great philosopher of religion.
斯温伯恩是另一个很好的例子，非常值得做对照参考。 Swinburne would be another good example, a really good example to compare here.
我特别喜欢听他讲东西。 I love listening to him talk.
「哦，神啊，我绝对相信实体二元论。」 Well, God, I am absolutely convinced of substance dualism.
我真的很喜欢他！ I love him!
然而，成为神意味着什么？问题就在这里，你如果去问斯温伯恩：成为神是什么意思？ What it means to be God, though, the problem is you ask Swinburne, What does it mean to be God?
他会说：「嗯，要想象自己是神并不难。」 He says, Well, it's not that hard to imagine being God.
「你就想象自己没有身体，不会疲乏，也不会无知。」 Just imagine you, and you don't have a body, you don't get tired, and you're not ignorant.
「你对一切了如指掌，很快就能得出成为神的涵义。」 You're aware of everything, and very soon you arrive at what it means to be God.
所以他实际上是在说，神就像一个拥有无限能力的庞大宇宙人格，这会带来许多问题。 So here he’s just saying God is like a big cosmic person like me with infinite powers, but that leads to a bunch of problems.
我可以给你举个例子，咱们先从这里开始。 I’ll give you one that we can start out with.
那就是哲学家斯蒂芬·劳提出的疑问：我们怎么知道神是良善的呢？ And that would be the philosopher Stephen Law, who has said, Well, how do we know God is good?
我们凭什么知道？ How do we know?
看看周围的世界。 Look at the world around us.
有人说：你看有这么多好事，说明有一位良善的神，祂容许恶的存在。 People say, Look at all the good things; that means there's a good God, and He tolerates evil.
而劳的反驳是：那你怎么知道并不是一个邪恶的 神，祂只是容忍些好事，好让祂能行更多的恶？ And Law says, Well, how do you know it isn't an evil God, and He just tolerates the good things so He can have more evil?
你怎么确定？ How do you know?
两种可能都说得通。 It could go either way.
我也看过威廉·莱恩·克雷格等人对此的反驳，但我觉得古典神论者有一 个精彩的回应：神是存在本身，由于存有的本质，祂也必须是完美善的。 I've seen others like William Lane Craig and others try to rebut this, but I feel like classical theists have a great retort, and that is because God is being itself; He also has to be perfectly good because of the nature of being.
你能替我们解说一下这点吗？ Why don't you walk us through that?
好的，你提了很多内容，我们就一点一点来讨论吧。 Yeah, boy, you put a lot of stuff on the table, so let me wade through it bit by bit here.
这些话题都很棒。 Really good stuff.
是的，当我们将古典神论与现代的神观对比时，确实存 在许多现代神观的不同版本，所以没法一眼全部否决。 So yes, when we’re contrasting classical theism with the modern God, well, there are a lot of different models of the modern God, so it’s kind of difficult to just dismiss all of them right away.
我觉得最好的方式就是为古典神论做出完整论证，它自然就会排除其他竞争的看法。 I think the best thing to do is make the case for classical theism, and that will automatically kind of exclude its competitors.
对吧？ Right?
因为我读斯温伯恩的作品时，没错，他属于人格主义神论 的大范围，但他对神的观点似乎和克雷格也不尽相同。 Because when I read Swinburne, yes, I think he falls under the sort of broad tent of theistic personalism, but he seems to have different views about God even than Bill Craig.
我刚刚还在翻他的《The Existence of God》。 I was looking around for his book, The Existence of God.
那是一本好书，真的相当不错。 It’s a great book; it’s really good.
但我可以举一个他们看法差异的例子。 But I’ll give you an example of a difference.
我不知道他现在是否还坚持这个观点，但在许多现代宗教哲学家看来，有关神的 必然性——也就是祂必须存在——有人会说那是一种事实上的必然性，或者说神 是无法被摧毁的：祂本来可能不存在，但既然祂存在了，就不会改变了，对吧？ I don’t know if he holds this anymore, but among modern philosophers of religion, God’s necessity—the idea that He has to exist—yeah, you could say that’s factual necessity, or just that God is indestructible, that it’s possible He could not have existed, but since He does exist, hey, He ain’t going anywhere, right?
或者逻辑上的必然性，也就是神必须存在，就像二加二等于四一样。 Or logical necessity, which is God must exist just like two plus two equals four.
如果否认这一点，就会自相矛盾，对吧？ To deny it would entail a contradiction, right?
我知道克雷格曾经只相信神在事实层面是必要的，后来他又改变了想法。 And so I know Craig at one point only believed God was factually necessary, then he changed his mind on that.
我不确定斯温伯恩是不是这样——我想也许他认为神只是事实层面的必要。 I don’t know if Swinburne—I think he might believe God is only factually necessary.
是啊，我觉得这里可能存在差异。 Yeah, I think that might be a difference there.
我也说不好，因为我读斯温伯恩的作品已是好多年前了，也许他对此已经有新想法了。 I can’t say because a lot of Swinburne’s work that I’ve spent time with was many years ago, so maybe he has changed his mind on this.
不过斯温伯恩很有名的一点是，他在终极解释层面常提出一种「 无法再简化的」概念，我想这是我们稍后要探讨的关键问题。 But Swinburne, you know, sort of famously posits bruteness at the sort of ultimate explanatory end, and I think that’s going to be a critical issue that we’re going to want to explore here later on.
好，我先简单回到你刚刚提到的其他话题上。 So real quick, I want to circle back to some of the other things you said.
没错，古典神论通常有几个关键特征。 Yeah, classical theism is marked by crucial characteristics.
神绝对是所有可被引发之事的第一因。 God is absolutely the first cause of all causable things.
没什么在神之先，对吧？ There’s nothing back of God, right?
就好像「到此为止」的终极端点。 It’s like the buck stops here.
神超越时间，是吧？ God is atemporal, right?
严格来说，祂不受时间限制。 Strictly timeless.
神完全单纯；祂不由任何部分组成——无论是物质层面还是形上层面。 God is absolutely simple; He’s not composed of parts—physical parts or metaphysical parts.
祂是纯粹的现实性；祂没有任何内在的被动潜能。 He’s purely actual; He lacks any intrinsic passive potency.
我认为，阿奎那对这套学说的核心贡献在于：神没有独立的本质，也没有独立的存在行为。 And I think the kind of core critical development from Aquinas that really sort of cements all this is that God has no distinct nature and no distinct act of existence.
成为神就是成为「是」。 To be God is just to be.
严格说来，「成为神」甚至不是一个实体；神是一种独立自存。 To be God isn’t even a substance, technically speaking; God is a subsistence.
这一点需要让人理解清楚，对吧？ That is something that people need to get clear on, right?
为帮助人理解这一点，举例来说：鱼是一种水生动物，Tren t 是有理性的受造物，大楼是为了让人居住而建造的结构，而 谈到神，我们只会说「神是」，后面不会再加别的，对吧？ To help people understand that, it’s like if I say a fish is an aquatic animal, Trent is a rational creature, a building is a structure created for people to dwell in, but for God, we would just say God is, and there’d be nothing after that, right?
对，没错。 Yeah, right.
其实说「神存在」有点不准确，因为这种句式在语法上通常指向一个因果来源。 It would be kind of incorrect to say God exists because I think we want to say anything of that type of grammatical structure is actually pointing towards a cause.
我们应该像 Barry Miller 所说的那样来表述：神的存在？ Rather, we should articulate it like this, as Barry Miller says: God's existence?
我们的回答就该是「存在！」 We should just have “exists!”
要加上感叹号。 with an exclamation point.
我觉得这样说很对，而且体现了神的超越性。 Which is, I think, that’s right, but it shows a radical transcendence of God.
那么其中一个问题——你提到了 Stephen Law 以及他对邪恶之神的质疑。 So one of the—you brought up Stephen Law and the evil God challenge.
对，这部分其实和方法与过程有关，对吧？ Yeah, so part of this comes down to method and procedure, right?
也就是说，是什么在驱使人接受某一种神观？ Like what sort of is motivating somebody toward a particular model of God?
在古典传统里，古典神论的动力来自于我们从眼前的事物着手，对吗？ In the classical tradition, what motivates classical theism is that we start with what’s in front of us, right?
我们先尝试把现实世界从最关键的脉络切开来分析。 We start by sort of carving reality at its joints.
我们从自然哲学开始，然后再进入形上学，对吧？ We start in philosophy of nature and then move to metaphysics, right?
在这里，我们会尝试解释一些常见的经验现象——像变化、合成等 ，然后你就会想，好，我们要怎么让「变化」这件事变得可理解？ And this is where you try to make sense of common experiences—things like change, things like compositeness—and you start to realize, okay, how do we make change intelligible?
嗯，我们必须在「存在」中进行区分，是吧？ Well, we have to kind of carve being into—right?
要区分出现实存在与潜在存在，才能给我们理解变化的条件。 There has to be actual being and potential being to sort of give us the conditions to render change intelligible.
接着我们就能从中提出一些因果原则，对吧？这会引导我们去思考那个「未被实现的 成就者」或「不变的改变者」，也就是用来解释为什么世上竟然有变化的事物存在。 And then we start to get sort of causal principles from this, right, that push us towards an unactualized actualizer, an unchanged changer, to make sense of why there are any changing things at all.
没错，跟着我大致想一下，对吧？ Right, so just follow me broadly, right?
也就是说，现实里有一些要素、面向或范畴，本质上并非自足地完全可理解，对吧？ So say that there are certain features or aspects or categories of reality that are not intrinsically completely intelligible, right?
它们总是超越自身地指向某种解释、某种理由或某种原因之源。 They’re always sort of pointing beyond themselves for a source of intelligibility or explanation or cause or something like that.
这些特征或范畴可能是什么呢？ What might some of these features or categories be?
传统哲学家会说，像那些处在变化中的事物、那些合成的事物、那些在性质上受限的事 物——也就是它们的本质和实际存在有真实区分的事物——都算是一种合成，对吧？ Well, again, traditional philosophers have said it seems like changing things, it seems like composite things, it seems like qualitatively finite things—things with a real distinction between their essence and active existence—which would be a type of composition, right?
这些东西不能当作「解释的终点」，对吗？ These things are not explanation enders, right?
也就是说，我们总还能继续追问「为什么它们会存在？」 You’re saying we can always ask, “Why do they exist?”
对，是的，它们并没有结束所有解释，也无法构成「存在」的充分条件——这是重点。 Right, yes, they don't terminate explanations, and they don’t provide a sufficient condition for being—that’s the key.
所以，如果现实只包含这类事物，传统的宇宙论证会说：如果现实仅此而已，就 不会有让它们真实存在的「充分条件」，结果这些事物就根本不会真实存在。 So if reality were only these types of things, the traditional cosmological argument just says if that’s all reality were, there would not be a sufficient condition for being, and none of those things would actually exist.
可既然它们确实存在，那我们就得摆脱这些范畴，对吧？ But given that they do exist, we actually have to escape those categories, right?
我们必须进行一个范畴的转换。 We have to make a category shift.
我们不能用更多的变化去解释这些正在变化的事物。 We can't explain these changing things by more changing stuff.
我们不能用更多偶然性去解释那些本来就偶然的事物。 We can't explain contingent things with more contingency.
我们不能用更多的合成来解释本身已经是合成的事物。 We can't explain composite things with more compositeness.
我们不能用另一个同样带有任意界限的事物来解释这些带有各种界限的事物。 We can't explain more sort of arbitrarily limited or bounded things with something that is itself arbitrarily limited and bounded.
那并不是一个能终结解释的方式。 That is not an explanation ender.
因此，传统的形上学家会说，为了在哲学与科学层面上让现实变得可理解 ，我们需要某种——尽管听起来很激进——「自我解释」的事实，对吧？ So whatever we need to render reality philosophically and scientifically intelligible, says the traditional metaphysician, we need something that could actually be—as radical as it sounds—a sort of self-explanatory fact, right?
这种事物本质上就能完全被理解。 Something that could be intrinsically completely intelligible.
那么，那样一种事物到底可能是什么呢，对吗？ And what could that type of thing possibly be, right?
看起来我们确实需要那样的事物，但到底是什么？ It seems like we need that type of thing, but what on earth?
实际上没有任何东西；地上没有任何事物能满足这个条件。 Literally nothing; it's literally nothing on earth that could be that.
它必定不是我们所谈到的这些任何东西。 It would have to be none of those things.
我觉得当代很多宗教哲学家就会说：「哦，好吧，那就是神；神就是那个终极解释。」 I think what happens here is with modern philosophers of religion, people say, Oh well, God; God is that ultimate explanation.
很多无神论者就会问：「为什么那就是神？」 And many atheists will say, Well, why is it God?
「那又是谁造成了神？」 What caused God?
「也许还有个超级神呢。」 Maybe there was a super God.
如果神只是一个全能全知的庞大宇宙人格，那你依然可以追问：「为什么停在这里？」 And if God is just a big cosmic person who is all-powerful and all-knowing, you would still ask, But why does it stop there?
然而，古典神论给了我们一个有原则的理由来说明：这就是为什么神是终极根基，并且 在神之外不可能有更高的东西，尤其是祂的单纯性——以及这如何与祂的至善相联系。 But classical theism gives us a principled reason to say this is why God is the ultimate foundation, and there can’t be anything beyond God, specifically His simplicity—and then how that ties into Him being all good.
我绝对想更深入探讨这一点。 I definitely want to explore that more.
是啊，我现在想说的是，先把「神」这个词放在一 边，去思考究竟什么才能成为「解释的终点」。 Yeah, and what I’m saying here is, like, put the term God aside and just ask what could possibly be an explanation ender.
我就是在引导人们思考这个问题。 That’s what I’m asking people to consider.
然后你就会发现，它必须是超越那些无法终结解释的范畴之物，对吗？ And then you realize, well, it would have to be something that escapes all those categories that could not be explanation enders, right?
对，这很好！ That’s good!
我很喜欢这种方式，因为它不是从「这是神存在的理由」开始，而是先做一番探究。 I love this because it’s saying instead of starting with, Here’s why God exists, we’re just doing an investigation.
好的，这也是我常常问无神论者的问题。 Alright, because this is a question I ask atheists a lot.
现实有没有可能有一种不是神的终极解释呢？ Could there be an ultimate explanation of reality that is not God?
我就是这样提问：「嘿，我们能不能先找个共同点？」 Like, I just start there, like, Hey, can we just find some common ground here?
现实中有没有一个不是神的终极解释？ Could there be an ultimate explanation of reality that’s not God?
然后我会问：「嗯，那它有什么特质？」 And I would ask, well, what properties does it have?
如果我们的推理是正确的，理想状况下，这个终极解释确实会带有神的属性。 Ideally, if we’re reasoning correctly, it turns out this ultimate explanation does have divine attributes.
因为正如你所说，这样做可以先除去一些先入为主的偏见。 Because what you’re saying is it’s a way to remove the prejudice.
就好比说：「听着，我们先谈终极解释，好吗？」 It’s like, Look, let’s just talk about ultimate explanations, okay?
先别管神，我们来想想看，是什么能够解释世上有可变的 东西、由部分构成的东西，以及不一定要存在的东西？ Don’t worry about God for a second, but what would this, what explains there are changing things, there are things made of parts, there are things that don’t have to exist?
所以，听起来我们必须找到某个终极者——它不变动、不由各部分组成，而且还必须存在。 So it sounds like we’ve got to get to something that’s ultimate—that doesn’t change, that doesn’t have parts, and has to exist.
糟了，这里就开始出现纷争：「这种存在之本性是谁的呢？」 Uh-oh, now we’re getting divided: whose nature does this exist?
除非你想主张几个「无可再问的事实」，对吧？ Unless you want to posit brute facts, right?
而且仅仅称某样东西是「必要的」并不够。 And it’s not enough to just call something necessary.
无神论者和自然主义者也会宣称某些物质事物是必要的——至少不少人会这么说，对吧？ Atheists and naturalists call physical things necessary—many of them, anyways, right?
就像以 Graham Oppy 为例。 Like take Graham Oppy.
我读他作品时感觉到，他似乎想把某个最初的物理状态称为必要的 ，然后通过某种非决定论的因果模型来推导出其他一切，是吧？ When I read him, it seems like he just wants to call some initial physical state necessary, and then through a model of indeterministic causation, get everything else, right?
对，好的，我认为那样做远远不够，对吧？ Right, okay, I think that’s horribly inadequate, right?
因为我不觉得那是一种充分的解释方式。 Because I don’t think that’s an adequate explanation.
没错。 Right.
因为要是我们继续追问：「为什么这个特定的宇宙初始状态会是那个必要根基呢？」 Because if we could ask, you know, Well, why is it this particular initial state of the universe that’s the necessary foundation?
看起来本来可能是别的什么状态。 It seems like it could have been something different than that.
但如果你的神观允许在很多方面都可以不一样，也就 是说祂不是那种无限的存在本身，那就会遭遇问题。 But if you have an idea of God that could have been different in many ways—that isn’t this infinite act of being itself—then you have problems.
不过，我觉得从神的单纯性来看，这就说得通了，因为现实的终极解释不能有任何部分。 But it seems to me, then that with divine simplicity, oh well, this explains it because the ultimate explanation of reality couldn’t have any parts.
如果某样东西是由部分构成的，那就会有更基本的东西 把它维系成整体——而那个更基本的才是终极解释。 If something has parts, you know, there’s something more basic than it that keeps the parts together—that is the ultimate explanation.
那就是神了。 That would be God.
因此，这也解释了为什么神是现实的终极根基。 So that explains why God is the ultimate foundation of reality.
祂就是最单纯者，而这并不代表祂很好懂。 He’s just the most simple thing, and that’s not going to be simple to understand.
祂没有部分，也不变动；祂是一切变化的根源，但祂自己并不改变。 He’s not composed of parts or doesn’t change; He is the source of all change but does not undergo change Himself.
这样就避免了我们把神想成小时候那种「神在天上 猜测我在干吗，并对我做的事感到惊讶」的观念。 That helps us to not think of God like we would as kids—like, Oh, God is up in heaven wondering what I’m doing, and He’s surprised at what I do.
那是一个非常拟人化的神观。 It’s a very anthropomorphic view of God.
不过，我觉得这也有助于说明「存在」与「善」之间可相通的关系。 But also, it helps, I think, the convertibility of being and goodness.
对，对，因为在古典神论看来——让我们来说说这一点吧。 Yeah, yeah, because in the classical view—let’s talk about that.
好的，不过我能先再补充一点吗？ Yeah, well, can I say one more quick thing?
好吗？ Right?
我最终认为神跟受造物之间的根本区别就在于合成性。 So I ultimately think that the fundamental difference between God and creature is compositeness.
我觉得合成性实际上能解释为何万事万物具有偶然性，这可以一路追溯到形上的层面。 I think compositeness actually helps to explain why things are contingent, and it goes right down to the metaphysical level.
一旦你承认神，其本质正是祂的存在行为本身，这就带来了许多好处。 Once you have God, whose essence just is His act of existence, there are so many advantages to this.
当然，为了理解神的单纯性以及类似的挑战，你会面临一些难题和困惑。 Yes, you have little puzzles and difficulties you have to work through to make sense of simplicity and challenges like that.
我在自己的播客上曾经多次讨论过这些问题，它们其实是可以厘清的。 I’ve talked about those infinitely on my podcast before, and they can be worked through.
不过，这里有太多好处；它建立起了坚定的一神论，一个终极的 解释终点，也在受造物与创造者之间划出了非常清晰的区别。 But there are so many advantages; it secures a robust monotheism, an ultimate explanatory stopping point, and draws a really clear distinction between what is created and their Creator.
正如你所说的，这也和「evil God challenge」的问题有关。 Now, as you also said, this will tie into the point about the evil God challenge.
传统的形上学家会试着理解摆在我们面前的事物，看起来确实有 许多美好的东西，于是他们会问：「那么，善到底是什么？」 Traditional metaphysicians are trying to make sense of what’s in front of us, and it seems like in front of us there are good things, and they ask, Well, what is goodness?
对吗？ Right?
他们发现的——而我也认为是正确的——是善其实就像是「应当有的存在」，对吧？ And what they’ve sort of discovered, and I think this is right, is that goodness is really sort of a due being, right?
它就是从可欲、或实现完备的角度来看待「存在」。 It’s just being under the aspect of desirability or success.
它拥有与自身相关的那些必要特征，对吗？ It’s something having the sort of features that are relevant to it, right?
而且我们得先有一定程度的「成功」或「良善」，才有可能把某样东西视为不良。 And there always has to be a certain degree of success, like goodness, before we can ever consider something bad.
它必须先具备足够多的相关特质，才能被视为某种特 定的事物；必须先有了这一点，我们才好谈其他。 It has to have enough relevant features to even be considered a certain type of thing; that has to be there before we can consider.
因为我们可以从道德或非道德的角度谈论「善」。 Because we can talk about goodness in a moral and a non-moral sense.
「那是一棵好的树。」 That’s a good tree.
它正在开花。 It’s blossoming.
它枝条都很健康，没有腐坏的迹象。 It has its branches; it's not decaying.
「好的松鼠」会奔跑、蹦跳、收集坚果；而「坏的」或 说有缺陷的松鼠，也许缺了一条腿，连橡子都找不着。 A good squirrel runs and scampers and gathers its nuts, but a bad or defective squirrel could even be said to be missing a leg and can't find an acorn to save its life.
一棵没有发芽的树。 A tree that’s not budding.
而在道德领域，我们也能感受到类似的情形。 But then in the moral world, we feel something similar.
比如一个「坏人」就缺乏他本该有的美德。 Like a bad person lacks the virtues they ought to have.
所以看起来，善就是当一个事物拥有它应当拥有 的存在，而恶或坏则是由于缺失了应有的存在。 So it seems like goodness is when you have the being you ought to have, and badness occurs with a lack of being.
它并没有在善之上再多出什么，对吗？ It’s nothing over and above good, right?
所以这就是为什么它可以和存在相通。 So that’s why it’s convertible.
它同时也是一种修饰性的形容词，而不是陈述性的——这只是种比较复杂 的说法，意思是「善」的语义内容会因我们所讨论的对象而改变，对吧？ It’s also an attributive rather than a predicative adjective, which is just a fancy way of saying the semantic content of goodness sort of shifts and slides depending on what we’re talking about, right?
所以，了解「什么是好的松鼠」并不能告诉你「什么是好的树」，对吧？ So to know what a good squirrel is tells you nothing about what a good tree is, right?
对啊，你必须先了解松鼠、树，或人类。 Right, yeah, you have to understand squirrels, trees, or humans.
只有在你了解一件事物的本质后，才能评断它是好还是不好。 You have to understand the nature of the thing before you can say that it’s good or bad.
然后你说到神——纯粹、完美的存在，纯粹的现实存有。 And then you get to God, just as pure, perfect being, as purely actual being.
而「善」其实就是让某个事物的潜能在它该发挥的层面上被实现。 And goodness really is just the actualization of potential relevant to a particular thing.
神是纯粹现实，是形上学意义的必然，因此神自然是纯然完美的善，没有任何瑕疵或缺陷。 God is purely actual, so it’s just going to follow from metaphysical necessity that God is purely and perfectly good, has no wrinkles, lacks privations, defects whatsoever.
所以「evil God challenge」根本和古典神论不搭边，对吧？ So the evil God challenge is just not even relevant to classical theism, right?
古典神论完全不必为这种问题而烦恼。 So classical theism can be completely unbothered by this type of issue.
对，这就好比问：「你怎么知道神是善的？」 Yeah, so it’s like asking, like, Well, how do you know God is good?
这就像以前有人问：「公尺是怎么定出来的呢？」大概和十几年前那种问题很像。 That would be like asking back a few, you know, a decade ago or so how the meter was calculated.
当时公尺是通过一根在法国的铱制标准尺来定义的，这根尺本身就被定为一公尺。 The meter was calculated; there’s a bar of like iridium in France that was the standard bar, and this bar was a meter long.
这根尺的长度就是「一公尺」的定义。 The length of this bar simply determined what a meter was.
所以当我们说「我知道某样东西是一公尺」， So it’s asking, like, I know something’s a meter.
「哦，好啊，你就拿出皮尺去量吧。」 Oh, well, you take out your tape measure.
那么，「你怎么知道那根标准尺就是一公尺呢？」 And well, how do you know the meter bar is a meter long?
因为它本来就定义了什么是公尺长。 Well, because it just is the standard of what it is.
它就是那样。 That’s what it is.
现在则改用了衰变的铯原子还是什么的，这样比原来的标 准尺更精确，因为那根尺其实并不一定刚好是一公尺。 Now we use, I think it’s like decaying cesium atoms or something like that, so it’s more precise than the meter bar, which wasn’t exactly a meter.
但重点是，我们询问「为什么某样东西是好的」有其道理，可 是问「为什么神是善的」其实不合逻辑，因为神就是善本身。 But the point is, asking why something is good makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense to ask why God is good, because God is goodness.
所以要问「为何祂是善的」并没有意义。 So it doesn’t make sense to ask why He is good.
祂就是善——这就是何谓「善」。 Well, He is; that’s what goodness is.
祂是圆满的存在；毫无短缺。 He’s the fullness of being; He doesn’t lack anything.
「为什么所有母亲都是父母？」 Why are all mothers parents?
对吧？ Right?
唔，这样的问题本身就透露着混淆，是吗？ Well, that statement indicates confusion, right?
对，这也就是我认为谈方法十分重要的原因，对吗？ Yeah, and also this is why I think it’s so important to talk about method, right?
我们不会只是把古典神论当作现代宗教哲学世界观比较里的某种对立「神模型」。 We don’t think about classical theism just sort of independently as another competitive model of God in worldview comparison in modern philosophy of religion debates.
我们认为它是一种非常传统的世界观和做自然哲学、形上学的方式所必然推导出来的结果。 We think of it as sort of the entailment of a very traditional way of looking at the world—a very traditional way of doing philosophy of nature and metaphysics.
这就是让我信服的原因。 That’s what convinced me.
当然，我认为你也可以把古典神论放到这种世界观的讨论里 来，然后说：「看嘛，这是一种非常单纯明了的理论。」 Now, I think you can put classical theism into these sort of worldview debates, right, and say, Look, it’s a theory with great simplicity.
实际上，它看起来就像我们能想象到的最简单的根本理论，对吧？ In fact, it seems like the simplest possible fundamental theory you could get, right?
我的意思是，还有什么能胜过神的单纯性？ I mean, what’s going to beat divine simplicity?
它在可预测性上有极大优势，还有一堆值得称道的点，对吧？ Enormous predictive success, all that good stuff, right?
但在传统上，人们不是这样去思考它的。 But that isn’t how people thought about it traditionally.
这是一种相对较新的比较世界观范式的方式，不过没问题，也很有意思。 That’s a very kind of new way of comparing worldview paradigms, and that’s fine; that’s interesting.
但对我来说，远不如直接去做形上学探究来得有趣。 But it’s far less interesting to me than actually just doing the metaphysics.
Trent，另一个重点是，我知道你或许也想谈谈有关「尤西弗罗困境」的问题。 And another upshot, Trent, I know you wanted to maybe talk about Euthyphro’s dilemma a little bit as well.
是啊，这就涉及神与道德间的讨论。 Oh yeah, so that’s the idea with God and morality.
那么为什么谋杀是错的？ So why is murder wrong?
如果它是错的仅仅因神说它错，那么祂是否也可能说谋杀是对的？ If it’s wrong because God says so, well, could He have said murder is right?
若真能如此，祂就好像一个庞大的宇宙暴君。 If He can, He’s like this big cosmic tyrant.
但如果它之所以错，是因为它本来就错，而且不用担心——神总会做对 的事——那听起来好像在神之上还有个规则表，让祂去查什么是对错。 But if it’s wrong because it just is wrong, and well don’t worry—God will always do the right thing—it sounds like there’s something over and above God, a rule book that He checks to see what’s right and wrong.
可如果真是那样，若有东西高于神，那才是真正的神。 But if that’s the case, if something’s over and above God, that would be God.
所以看起来我们陷入了一个两难，这就是所谓的「尤西弗罗困境」。 So it seems like we’re in a bit of a dilemma here—it’s called the Euthyphro Dilemma.
对，这可以追溯到柏拉图的一部著名对话：究竟是神（或诸神） 因为某事物是善而意愿之，还是那事物因为神意愿之才算善？ Yeah, and this goes back to one of Plato’s famous dialogues: Does God or gods, as it is originally, will something because it’s good, or is something good because God wills it?
就像你指出的，对有神论者来说，这两种说法都不太理想；一方 面看起来像是有某种高于神的东西，多数有神论者不愿接受。 For the theists, as you pointed out, like, none of those are particularly attractive because, in one sense, it seems like there’s something sort of over and above God, which most theists don’t want to accept.
另一个角度又会导致道德好像是随意的，这也是多数人不太愿接受的，对吧？ And in another sense, it seems to make morality arbitrary, which most people don’t want to accept, right?
因为有些事物看起来就是本质上恶的。 It seems like some things just are sort of inherently bad.
而古典神论在这里同样有应对的论据。 So classical theism, again, has resources here.
我认为，这就像是那些与古典神论几乎格格不入的现代质疑，当它们遇上古典神论时 ，往往很难生效，就像「evil God challenge」那样，对吧？ I think this is sort of like one of those modern objections that’s almost completely irrelevant and just bounces off classical theism like the evil God challenge, right?
因为若我们承认「存在与善可相通」的原则，并且相信神 是独立自存的存在，那就意味着神也是独立自存的善。 Because if we have this convertibility principle and we have God as subsistent being, it’s just going to follow that God is subsistent goodness.
因此，神意愿那些好的事物既不是随心所欲，也不受制于 神之上的什么东西；而是神依照祂的本性行事，对吧？ And so that God wills good things is neither arbitrary nor dictated by something over and above God; it’s just God acting in accord with His nature, right?
所以，借用柏拉图的说法，我们拆解这两难的问题时，并不是只能在「神意愿 某事物所以它是善」和「因为它是善所以神意愿该事物」这两者中选一个。 So the way we split the dilemma, using Plato’s language, is not that we only have two choices to say, Is something good because God wills it?
也不是「神因为它是善而意愿它，好像善在神之外」。 Or does God will it because it’s good, like goodness is outside of Him?
真正的破解方式是：神意愿它，因为神祂就是善，祂就是善本身。 The way you split the dilemma is that God wills it because He is good, or He is goodness itself.
所以，祂所意愿的一切，自然就会是善。因为倘若神就是圆满的善本身， 且是那永恒不变且必然的存在，就不可能有一个独立于神之外的善标准来 衡量祂，也不可能是任意而行，因为神祂自己便是独立自存的善，对吧？ And so naturally, what He wills automatically will be good in that respect because if God just is perfect goodness and just is the divine will and just is immutable and necessary being, then there could be no question of God willing in accordance with some standard of goodness independent of Him or being arbitrary because God just is the subsistent good itself, right?
并且万物都是按照各自的本性来行事。 And everything acts according to its nature.
《公教会教理》里有一段很好的阐述来概括这一点。 The Catechism has a great paragraph to summarize this.
在教理的第 271 段，谈到神的全能，以及神不会变成一个无所不能的「宇宙霸王」。 It’s paragraph 271 in the Catechism, talking about God’s omnipotence and how no, He’s not going to become an omnipotent cosmic bully.
这一段引述了阿奎那，提到：「神的全能绝非随意而行。 It quotes Aquinas, and it says here in paragraph 271: “God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary.
在神那里，权能、本质、意志、理智、智慧与正义都同一不二。 In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical.
因此，神的全能之中不可能包含与祂的公义之意志或智慧之理智相冲突的事物。 Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in His just will or His wise intellect.
Pat，总结一下吧，也许你可以跟我们分享一些管道 或资源，让更多人能更深入认识这古典神论的传统？ To wrap everything up, Pat, maybe you could just share with us some areas or resources you would recommend for people to learn more about this classical theistic tradition?
你可以随意推荐你自己的著作或节目，不用客气！ And you can shamelessly plug any of your own!
好的，非常感谢！ Well, thank you very much!
我的意思是，这里还有太多可以进一步探讨的层面。 I mean, there’s so much more to explore here.
就算是谈到神的单纯性，我们也要非常谨慎，因为我们其实是在用拉伸过的概念，对吗？ I mean, even with divine simplicity, we just have to be very careful to say that, you know, we’re using stretched concepts, right?
所谓「零界定」以及相关措辞实际上出自 Barry Miller，我会推荐他的著作当作一个学习资源。 Zero bounding and all this language actually comes from Barry Miller, so he would be one resource I would recommend.
若你能拿到 Barry Miller 的作品——可惜现在很不好找—— 他真是相当有才，尤其是那本《Fullness of Being》。 If you can get your hands on Barry Miller's work, which is actually really hard to do, unfortunately, he’s brilliant, especially Fullness of Being.
如果你想了解如何将对神之单纯性的传统坚持与现代分析哲学对话，我会大力推荐这本书。 If you want to make sense of traditional commitment to divine simplicity in conversation with modern analytic philosophy, I would point people strongly there.
还有另一位现代哲学家，能将传统形上学思想与当代分析哲学结 合起来的，就是 William Vallicella。 Another sort of contemporary philosopher who sort of blends the new and the old—traditional metaphysical ideas with contemporary analytic philosophy—would be William Vallicella.
他的著作真的很好。 His work is really good.
如果你想深入研究更专业的领域，那么 Brian Davis 神父的普 及性作品，以及 Eleanor Stump 的著作，都很值得一读。 If you’re interested kind of in the more technical weeds, some good popular-level introductions would be the work of Father Brian Davis, which he recommended, and the work of Eleanor Stump.
她写过一本很好的书，叫做《The God of the Philo sopher and the God of the Bible》， 不但阐明了古典神论的思想动机，也让你看到它如何与《圣经》相互契合。 She’s got a great book called The God of the Philosopher and the God of the Bible, which not only unpacks the motivations for classical theism but shows you how it is compatible with Scripture.
对吧？ Right?
我想这也正是许多现代神观模式的忧虑所在；推动他们的原因 之一是他们认为古典神论与经文之间可能有张力或不合之处。 And I think that’s a concern of many of these sort of modern models of God; what’s motivating them is they think there’s a tension or incompatibility there.
如果你对此也担心，我建议你看看 Eleanor Stump 的那本书。 So if that’s a concern of yours, get Eleanor Stump’s book.
这是一本短小精悍的书，名为《The God of the Bib le, the God of the Philosopher》。 It’s a short little book, The God of the Bible, the God of the Philosopher.
另外，我在自己的播客里也多次和人聊天讨论这其中的一些专业面向。 And then I’ve had many conversations on my podcast about some of the technical aspects of this.
我建议你去听听我跟 W. Matthews Grant 博士的对话，我们讨论了神 的单纯性，以及它如何在面临各种质疑时经受考验，例如关于偶然受造或偶然知识之类的议 题，看看这些质疑会如何冲击这个模式，又如何证明它的坚实度，我觉得这是相当重要的。 I would search for my conversations with Dr. W. Matthews Grant, where we discuss divine simplicity and how it holds up under stress testing different objections to try and break the model in relation to contingent creation or contingent knowledge and stuff like that, and show how robust and durable this model actually is under stress testing, which I think is really important.
他也有一本好书，探讨神的单纯性如何帮助我们理解并保 障主张自由意志的理论，这也是我认为相当重要的一点。 He’s got a great book as well on how divine simplicity actually helps to make sense and secure libertarian freedom, which is another, I think, major upshot.
以上就是一大堆资源了。 So that’s a lot of stuff.
真是够丰富的！ That’s a fun one!
这些话题可以挖得非常深入，而且这样做也很重要。 You could go very deep on these topics, and it’s important to do that.
我推荐大家去听听 John DeRosa 的「Classica l Theism」播客，他在那儿对这个主题做了很多精彩访谈。 I recommend for our listeners to check out John DeRosa’s Classical Theism podcast; he has a lot of great interviews there on this subject.
我们提到了 Brian Davies。 We mentioned Brian Davies.
我在 Holy Apostles College and Semina ry 教一门在线护教学课程，指定的教材就是他写的《Introducti on to the Philosophy of Religion》。 I teach a class at Holy Apostles College and Seminary, an online apologetics class, and the textbook I assigned for that is Davies' Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.
这是一本涵盖很多基本问题的好入门书籍，所以我也推荐给我们的听众参考。 That’s a very nice starter on a lot of these questions, so I recommend that for our listeners to check that out.
Pat，非常感谢你今天能来上节目。 Pat, thank you so much for being on the show today.
谢谢你，Trent！ Thank you, Trent!
噢，对了，说到这个，因为你之前提到了我另一个网站 Chroni cles of Strength，不过我现在也有一个新的 Yo uTube 频道，叫做「Philosophy for the People」，是我和 Jim Madden 医生一起主持的。 Oh, and real quick, because you mentioned my other website before, Chronicles of Strength, but I also have a new YouTube channel now called Philosophy for the People, which I co-host with Dr. Jim Madden.
如果你喜欢这类内容，那现在到那里去看会更合适。 So if you like this type of stuff, that would be the more relevant place to go at this point.
好的！ Alrighty!
再次非常感谢你，也谢谢各位收听我们的节目。 Thank you so much again, sir, and thank you guys for checking us out.
希望这些内容对大家有所启发，也祝各位度过美好的一天。 I hope this was edifying for you all, and I hope that you have a very blessed day.
嘿，谢谢你观看这支视频！ Hey, thanks for watching this video!
如果你想帮助我们制作更多优质内容，记得点击订阅，然 后访问 trendhornpodcast.com If you want to help us produce more great content like this, be sure to click subscribe and go to trendhornpodcast.com
来成为我们的高级订阅者。 to become a premium subscriber.
这样一来，你不仅能帮助我们持续推出更多类似的视 频，还能获得额外内容和未来项目的独家抢先看。 You’ll help us create more videos like this and get access to bonus content and sneak peeks of our upcoming projects.