Only if you want to be honest about it.
"I have found that abandoning the empirical method that Science is based upon will lead one to ridiculous assertions about geocentricity and other such nonsense."
I have found that abandoning the empirical method that philosophical naturalism is based on will lead to ridiculous assertions like abiogenesis, the Big Bang, evolution and the motion of the earth despite the lack of evidence for any of these.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
The earth moves. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you think the earth is motionless? May as well think that stars are holes poked in the box that God put us in that allows the light of heaven to shine through.
Because all motion is relative to the observer. The Earth moves...if we view it from a heliocentric model. The Earth is fixed, if we view it from a geocentric model. The Sun and Earth move if we view it from Sirius. The relationship and interaction is fixed in physics.
You do know the Big Bang was formulated by a priest. It’s meant to be a simplistic explanation to explain what is observed about the universe. If the Catholic Church says the Big Bang is a-okay...I don’t see what the hubbub is about.