Yes. All people agree on the speed of light in a vacuum, and when that value has been adjusted (which it has, several times), it is based on testable and repeatable evidence.
That is quite a limited point of agreement, and not really analogous to what we are discussing.
There is, so far as I'm aware, not a single person who claims otherwise who has been able to produce any evidence to support their differing claim.
Facts are demonstrated by producing evidence, not arrived at by means of having discussions. You make it sound like a conference, a council, or something.
You're building a case on a rather weak analogue, because we're not talking about facts we're talking about worldviews and belief-systems not singular beliefs.
The fact that they seek more than just a claim before they'll accept something as being true.
So what do they base their ontology on?
You seem to be describing contrarians, not skeptics.
Nope, philosophical skeptics. People who are consistent in their skepticism not only applying it to worldviews they don't believe in.
Given that you've already demonstrated that you don't actually know what a skeptic really is, I don't think you are justified in making those kinds of assumptions.
I know quite well what a skeptic really is, you simply take skeptic half-heartedly and include only
religious skeptics rather than philosophical skeptics. The philosophical skeptic doubts the ability to gain knowledge, even doubting whether we can establish sufficient cause for doubt. And just as no two believers believe the same thing, neither do two skeptics take their skepticism to the same extent.
I mean, I'd describe myself as a skeptic, and I'd be happy to accept the existence of the supernatural providing that it can be shown in some testable way.
Seems a rather arbitrary restriction. What makes you think reality is always testable and amenable to human reasoning? How do we test that belief?
If it is testable in a repeatable way. If other people who have tested it get the same results as me. If it acts in a predictable and consistent manner.
So you've confined what is true to what is accessible to science, what is your basis for this restriction? What test did you run to determine that?
Perhaps something that exists outside our universe but is able to interact with our universe. After all, that's basically what Christians say God is, don't they? And isn't God an example of something supernatural?
Yes, but God is a panentheistic being. What we move, and breathe, and have our being in. The underpinning existence of all that exists.
I fear you have misunderstood the point I was making...
No, I just decided to kick it up a level. You were highlighting the problem of universals, I shifted it to ontological primacy.
If a person is a Platonic realist, but then decides that they find conceptualism to be the most plausible worldview, how does their actual life change?
Such pragmatic considerations don't really matter in the theism vs atheism debate. If the God of the Bible is real, there is a lot that changes in how we understand reality. Though being a Christian doesn't mean we can't be pragmatic, but it does mean that our happiness and our well being are not the greatest ends we can pursue.
Please tell me how the life of a Platonic realist is different to a Physicalist.
Considering the contention is not purely about one metaphysical reality vs another, the pragmatic concerns don't matter much. But the epistemics and subsequent plausibility of various beliefs certainly changes depending on the metaphysical conception.