There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are correct. Evidence of God is not scientific evidence and never will be.

Ooh, that's not a good sign. That indicates that God is likely not to exist.

If you want to claim to be evidence for God you would have to show why. Just making a statement and not being able to support it shows that you do not know if you are evidence for God and could be evidence against God. Mere belief is worthless when it comes to an evidentiary argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair, Manetho is one of our primary sources for Egyptian chronology. His kings lists are used for dating almost the whole of ancient Egyptian history.

Also, most historians in Egypt were priests because only priests knew how to write (all scribes were priests).

Okay, a bit more than a priest. But it still looks like a hit story if one reads it. It would be the equivalent to a modern day anti semitic tract. I probably should have included a link to his story .that mentions Moses.. It does not look like a piece of history at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And other archeologists validate the story. Will see at the end at the final exam. This is all just preparation for that Day.

Really? If that is the case why can't those on your side find any? We are not talking pretend archaeologists, but archaeologists that are sure enough of their beliefs that they submit them for peer review. Peer review is very useful because if on makes a mistake a person that understands the topic well can point out errors and why they are wrong. Please note. A person in refuting a peer reviewed article is never allowed to say "You are wrong" and that is all and be taken seriously. They have to show why that person is wrong.

So why don't any of the "archaeologists" on your side go through peer review? Is it because they know that they are selling half baked nonsense?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to think it has all the answers and the ancients were stupid is extremely arrogant.

No one has claimed that. Well except for those trying to create a strawman. No one has ever said that the ancients were stupid. They were of course far more ignorant about the nature of the world than we are, but that is not because they were stupid. Our present knowledge is due to the fact that knowledge accumulates over the years. That does not make us smarter. Just better informed.

And neither has anyone said that science knows everything or can know everything. The scientific method is just a very very powerful tool when it comes to solving problems. And once a problem is solved it tends to stay solved. There are some analogies in mathematics. Does the value of 2 + 2 change? Not unless one changes the rules a bit. For example if one changes the number base 2 + 2 can be 10 or 11 rather easily. But the general solution remains the same. Also in math a complex problem may be solve but later on a a shorter more elegant solution may be found later. In a sense that happens in the sciences quite often. Theories and concepts are tweaked and improved as we learn more, even though the basic idea does not change. Einstein's General Relativity did not make apples fall up.

One huge problem with fundamentalists is that they come to a debate about the sciences totally unarmed. They just repeat old refuted nonsense so it is rarely a challenge to debate with them. It makes the debates a bit like this:

That is why I am always offering to go over the basics. If one understands the sciences one can contribute. Who is to say, a creationist may some day upset the apple cart. But that can never happen if they do not learn the science necessary to do so.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I ask again why one should to go to this resource for guidance? What does one need a belief in "the Spirit" or a holy book for to decide how to live, to determine what brings lasting satisfaction (peace and joy), and what brings unhappiness (hatred and contention)? These are problems one solves empirically, through experience, through trial-and-error, if he seeks the knowledge about how life works. Why would one believe that the bible writers had any valuable insights into achieving that goal?

The Bible continually advises man to think small, to see himself as as inherently sinful and

[/QUOTE]

My take is that if you DON'T believe that the biblical writers didn't mean those myths literally, you are taking unjustified liberties. If you don't believe that it was taught that a man named Noah was instructed to build a large boat which saved the lives not drowned by a global flood that submerged all dry land because God was unhappy with his work and intended to correct it, then it is you misinterpreting what the words meant.

I interpret scripture for myself. Why would I or anybody else defer to anybody else's interpretations? Where the scripture is clear, such as it rained for forty days and forty nights, there is only one meaning possible. If one claims that that means anything other than what it says, he has no claim to being correct. Where scripture is vague or ambiguous, and it can legitimately be said that the author may have intended any of two or more ways that those words could be understood, since the author isn't able to speak for himself, the words have no clear meaning. Picking one possibility and calling that the meaning of the scripture is to commit a non sequitur fallacy and generate an unsound conclusion



I've tried that already. After ten years of Christianity, I left it and found secular humanism. That's when I had my spiritual awakening and realized that I had been living an inauthentic life in Christianity, right after I recognized what an error it had been to have believed by faith, and that this religion had been steering me in the wrong direction. I have been content with that choice for nearly four decades now. And I know from experience that the claims people made for this religion never materialized for them or me.

We can have "communion" with reason and empiricism instead of gods, and it is available to everyone just by eliminating belief by faith. Why continue to live an inauthentic life of spiritual ennui when you can reconnect to the earth and enjoy authentic spirituality?

Can people get results other ways, seems like it.
God did for me in 5 minutes what I couldn’t do by first delivering me from my addictions, which enabled me to get to the root of why I drank and drugged to begin with by cleaning house and taking a moral inventory, making amends. This resulted in a clear conscience. Was born again and received Eternal Life and the power to change, live a godly life and also help people who are in a similar situation as I was.
I love God’s ways:


“Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the weak, And to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, And the young men shall utterly fall, But those who wait on the Lord Shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40:28-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Wildswanderer]

@Polymath257 just explained why this is entirely incorrect, and you have simply ignored it and waved it away. Not very compelling reasoning. The origins of a geocentric universe are religion not science, modern science and it's methods did not exist prior to this incident, many philosophers of science maintain this was the "birth" of the modern scientific method. It was the Catholic church who arrested tried and imprisoned Galileo for heresy, so this was science attempting to drag religious superstition into the modern era, and religion trying to strangle science in its crib. They failed of course and have recanted their positions on this and other scientific facts since. This ought to give anyone with any pretence of objectivity some pause.

Only it wasn't just the church..
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentrism, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can people get results other ways, seems like it.
God did for me in 5 minutes what I couldn’t do by first delivering me from my addictions, which enabled me to get to the root of why I drank and drugged to begin with by cleaning house and taking a moral inventory, making amends. This resulted in a clear conscience. Was born again and received Eternal Life and the power to change, live a godly life and also help people who are in a similar situation as I was.
I love God’s ways:


“Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the weak, And to those who have no might He increases strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, And the young men shall utterly fall, But those who wait on the Lord Shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40:28-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬[/QUOTE]
One should not conflate "Hey! It worked for me!" with the truth. You belief may have been a key factor in your recovery. That is good. That does not mean that it is right in all things, In fact it is easy to show that some aspects of your beliefs are incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I never had any reason or need to look at archeological or scientific reasons for or against my relationship or basis for that because God showed Himself to me and changed me.

Do you realize that this is a statement of closed-mindedness, which is the unwillingness or inability to evaluate evidence dispassionately and be convinced by compelling arguments. What do you suppose the word closed is referring to in that word? It's referring to a mind being closed to evidence.

I started looking into what they were saying and found that unbelievers saw the same evidence on way and believers another.

You just said that you didn't even look at the evidence. That ought to answer much of your question about why the two groups come to different conclusions.

You mean some people “say” they didn’t happen. I would classify that as opinion.

It is possible to know enough to call that opinion a fact. It's never a good strategy to imply that what one doesn't know isn't known to others who HAVE looked at the evidence. It's pretty much an indication of Dunning-Kruger thinking - a mistaken sense of false equivalence with others who know things for a lack of understanding that they can and often do know for a fact that those disagreeing with them are wrong, even if the other guy doesn't know that. We've seen a lot of that lately with the anti-vaxxers who believe that all opinions are equal, so just pick one and tell people who disagree, "That's just your opinion." This is what happens when the unknowingly unknowing (doesn't know and doesn't realize that there IS anything to know) knowingly knowing - people who DO know and know they know.

The knowingly unknowing, the third category, recognize that there are others who can know what they do not, and if they are unable to interpret the data directly, such as comparing the death rate from Covid in the unvaccinated to that in the vaccinated, they know to turn to the counsel of experts, as one might to an epidemiologist regarding pandemic advice. But the Dunning-Kruger type doesn't see it like that. To him, there are no opinions more valuable than his own, presumably because he is unaware that there is a different way of knowing - critical thought - that reliably produces sound conclusions (correct answers).

It can be said with confidence and certainty that a global flood never occurred, but only if one is aware of the relevant evidence and able to evaluate it properly. You've already indicated that that is not the path you choose to take, so you cannot know what can only be known that way. And objections to what others who have done so have concluded have no standing with them.

You are alive in one sense but dead in another because you have no spiritual awareness.

I would say the same to the person ensconced in a religion like Christianity. How is it possible to be be spiritual if one isn't connected to his world? That's the basis of the spiritual experience - that sense of connection to one's world, to the other people and other life around one, and to the earth and the cosmos. When I was a Christian, I was taught that this world is inferior for being made of matter, that it was fit for destruction and replaced by something better, that the body, referred to contemptuously as the flesh, is a corrupt prison for the soul. We were even taught that our minds were the enemy, that doubt and cognitive dissonance were the fruit of evil influences invading our heads. Isn't this the opposite of connectivity, mystery, awe, and gratitude - the spiritual experience? Believing in spirits like gods and angels doesn't make anything spiritual. As I have argued here, it can do the opposite.

Evidence for a Global Flood and Its Importance for Our Times – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation

I didn't see any evidence there that made me believe that there was ever a global flood.

What I did see, however, is what I consider to be the reason the flood story exists: marine fossils on mountaintops. These were misunderstood by the ancients, who knew nothing of geological time or orogeny (mountain building). They could only imagine water rising to submerge these mountains, which had to be the lethal action of a good God. And so, a story was created to rescue this good God by claiming that man was sinful and deserved to be expunged, not a very believable one considering that virtually all terrestrial life would have been destroyed and the world repopulated using the same sin-infested breeding stock.

It's not surprising that this creationist site would gloss over the relevant science to make its case that mountaintop marine fossils are evidence of a global flood when it is known that they are easily explained without resorting to such a thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I said is still correct. If the accepted science was different than the current method it was still the science of the time period.

So you want to try to undermine the authority of science by pointing to commonly believed wrong guesses from the past? You won't. You've already been told that those beliefs you cited are not the product of science. Science is not the sum of things "accepted" about reality. It is the output of a constrained procedure.

You might call astrology science since it has been claimed to represent how the world works. If so, you would be wrong. Science replaced it with astronomy.

People call the Piltdown man hoax and the false beliefs it spawned science. It's not. Science exposed and corrected the hoax.

My take is that if you DON'T believe that the biblical writers didn't mean those myths literally, you are taking unjustified liberties. If you don't believe that it was taught that a man named Noah was instructed to build a large boat which saved the lives not drowned by a global flood that submerged all dry land because God was unhappy with his work and intended to correct it, then it is you misinterpreting what the words meant.

Total nonsense. They would have written them as myths if that's what they were. They didn't. They named real places and things.

It seems you misread my comment. You're saying what I'm saying. They didn't consider their accounts myths. Nor metaphors, nor allegories. They were offered as history - what actually happened. And that if one assumes otherwise because he now knows that the accounts are incorrect if read literally, then he is taking unjustified liberties.

Written them as myths? What does that mean? They are myths as written, whether that was the intention or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only it wasn't just the church..
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentrism, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view.

No, Aristotle never refuted heliocentrism. He may have argued against it, but just arguing is not a refutation.

I am unaware if he argued either way. Do you have evidence for your claim? If not why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You just said that you didn't even look at the evidence.

When I got saved I had no reason to, what for? That would be like living with your parents, they raise you and so do you all of the sudden go do research to see if they are really your parents? I wouldn’t.
When I started sharing with people they brought up some things like science proved this or that and that’s when I started checking out the different things.
I also found many people say they understand the Bible yet their view of God and the Scriptures are skewed.
As far as the article not mentioning any evidence, here is the place they list 6 evidences and then proceed to explain their findings:
Physical Evidence for a Global Flood
This brings us to the physical evidence for a Global Flood. We will examine six bodies of evidence:

1. Eyewitness testimony from all over the world.
2. Marine fossils on top of Earth’s high mountains.
3. Billions of well-preserved fossils all over the Earth.
4. Sediment layers cover vast areas.
5. No slow and gradual erosion. Rapid deposition.
6. Over-sized valleys, water gaps, and vast planation surfaces.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes. He also discovered a path to fame. Notice how he took over even though he never actually saw Jesus in person, but those around did. many of Paul's teachings are directly opposed to what Jesus taught in the Gospels (who was the mission to?).

How were Paul’s teaching opposed to what Jesus taught?
I wouldn’t call this the path to fame:
“From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness—”
‭‭II Corinthians‬ ‭11:24-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Polymath257]

What you are missing is that the modern science method doesn't answer anything but a few " how" questions, if indeed those are accurate. Faith was needed and still is, to answer the " Why?" questions.

This is clearly false.

For example, science can answer the question of 'why' atoms bond to each other to form molecules. They do so because of energy minimization and the way that electrons are shared between atoms quantum mechanically.

Science can answer 'why' nuclear fusion happens inside of stars: the pressure and temperatures are high enough to strip the nuclei of their electrons and to overcome the potential barrier between nuclei.

Science can answer 'why' an epidemic spreads: people don't take sufficient precautions of the correct sort, which allows the virus to transfer from one person to another.

Science can answer 'why' planets orbit stars: the force of gravity has a certain form and that leads to precisely the types of motion we see in planets.

So, science can and does answer many 'why' questions.

And the *way* it answers 'why' questions is by finding more fundamental laws that can be used to deduce the behaviors we want explanations for. it does this all the time in all areas of science.

But, what cannot happen is the answer 'why' the fundamental laws are as they are. Why not? because any possible explanation would have to be based in a *more* fundamental law.

In fact, since science can only calculate from the material universe it makes it impossible to know if it's accurate.

The history of the subject shows that you are wrong. We can and do determine the level of accuracy (called error bars) on every observation. This is what helps us control the propagation of inaccuracies in our analyses.

Because our minds are part of that universe. If that's all they are, we have no reason to trust our intellects.

Well, we should NOT have absolute trust in them: we know of many situations where we can easily be lead astray. We are subject to confirmation bias, optical illusions, social pressures, etc. The whole reason for the scientific method is to help guard against those issues.

And this is precisely why *faith* is such a poor way to discover truth. it is the essence of confirmation bias, allowing social pressures to dictate viewpoints, and allowing for 'feelings' to lead us astray. The whole notion of faith is *precisely* what needs to be guarded against in order to find out truths about the world.

They would be completely controlled by an unbroken chain of blind causation. We, then, are just fizz in the bottle of the universe and our thoughts are no more under our control than the solar system is. Only if something exists outside of the material can we objectively view the workings of the universe. In fact, it seems that perhaps we can alter reality with only our minds. This is where religion has always informed us... outside the physical sphere there must be another, greater reality that answers the " Why"? questions.

Again, this is clearly false. We evolved to be able to distinguish threats in an environment. An inability to do so lead to dying off. So, while we cannot have absolute confidence in our senses, we can have at least some. And this is why testing, observation, and exploration is so important: we *know* that we miss a lot and need to find other ways to explore.

One of the ideas in the scientific method is that ideas need to be tested to see when they are *wrong*. By finding out the limitations to our ideas, we can more confidently apply them when they do work. but this also means there needs to be a continual pushing of limits: more accuracy in our observations, more possible types of observation to be made, more ways to explore and measure, etc.

We *know* there are things our senses cannot detect because we have detected them! We know infrared light is there because we figured out how to detect it even though we cannot directly see it ourselves. Same for ultrasound, or xrays, or subatomic particles, etc. We *can* detect these even though we cannot detect them directly with our senses.

This seems to be an aspect you are missing.

 

[Polymath257]

Only it wasn't just the church..
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentrism, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view.

They subscribed to the geocentric view because of their *faith*.

Aristotle had not refuted heliocentrism. He had made some arguments based on faulty physics (another of his accomplishments) that got repeated again and again but never tested.

It took Galileo to show just how wrong Aristotle's physics was. He was wrong about heavier things falling faster than lighter things (something easily tested, by the way). He was wrong in saying that motion requires a force (it isn't motion, but acceleration). He was wrong about there being 'natural motions' as opposed to 'violent motions'.

Furthermore, many of the ways Aristotle was wrong were in ways that could easily be tested without complicated instruments. But, because of the philosophy and *faith* of Ari and those that followed him, the tests were never done until the rise of modern science.

And this is the crucial point that made modern science what it is: that all ideas, no matter how obvious or natural they seem, need to be tested by actual observations. Simply arguing about metaphysics does not lead to truth. In fact, it usually leads the opposite way because it merely adds to biases rather than eliminates them.

 

[Polymath257]

No, Aristotle never refuted heliocentrism. He may have argued against it, but just arguing is not a refutation.

I am unaware if he argued either way. Do you have evidence for your claim? If not why should anyone take you seriously?

Ari argued against heliocentrism in a variety of ways. It is actually instructive to see how he was wrong in his arguments. They were not stupid; merely ignorant.

For example, in Ari's mind, the element 'Earth' had a natural tendency to move towards the center of the universe. To do otherwise would be 'violent' and non-natural. This is why the Earth formed at the center of the universe. The heavens were made lighter material, which is why the planets and stars were in the sky. They had a natural circular motion.

The point is that Ari's notion of physics was quite different than what was discovered later. He made some guesses that sounded right, but they were never tested. So, the idea that heavy things fall faster 'sounds right' even though it is simply wrong. The idea that the wind would be moving past at a thousand miles an hour because of the rotation of the Earth underneath 'sounds right' even though it is based on false physics.

The idea that if you drop a ball, the motion of the Earth would lead it to fall to the west of where you drop it 'sounds right' based on the way physics was understood (but never tested). This lead to the conclusion that the Earth could not be rotating.

The idea that if the Earth went around the sun, the stars would appear to swing back and forth over the course of a year is based on solid math. But it assumed that the stars are MUCH closer than they actually are (and the swinging back and forth *was* found eventually: it is parallax).

This is actually a very good lesson for those who use their intuitions alone to attempt to understand the universe. Without testing and observation, many ideas 'seem right' but are actually badly wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

How were Paul’s teaching opposed to what Jesus taught?

Jesus specifically directed his message to the Jews. He explicitly said it was not for others.

Paul changed that.

 

[dybmh]

I can give you some links as well. Here is a page from a book, but it will bring you no joy:

Dang! Well it gives me no joy either. At any rate here is a link to the soruce:

The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100S on JSTOR

I will check that after I post this, but you can read a hundred articles there a month for free.

EDIT Oh that was weird. When I wrote this I only got the generic IMG symbol telling me that something went wrong. But I see that the image did post. Nice.

that's from 1992. the pottery shards from the original links i provided were found in 2012.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I got saved I had no reason to, what for? That would be like living with your parents, they raise you and so do you all of the sudden go do research to see if they are really your parents? I wouldn’t.
When I started sharing with people they brought up some things like science proved this or that and that’s when I started checking out the different things.
I also found many people say they understand the Bible yet their view of God and the Scriptures are skewed.
As far as the article not mentioning any evidence, here is the place they list 6 evidences and then proceed to explain their findings:
Physical Evidence for a Global Flood
This brings us to the physical evidence for a Global Flood. We will examine six bodies of evidence:

1. Eyewitness testimony from all over the world.

That is lacking. There is no such testimony. Not even the Bible makes that mistake. This is not even "physical evidence".

1. Marine fossils on top of Earth’s high mountains.

So what? You need more than an observation for it to qualify as evidence. This is why I keep telling you that you should learn what is and what is not evidence. The marine fossils found on mountains are evidence against the flood. The flood predicts only one thin layer of fossils at the most. Almost everything that was alive at the time of the flood would have died. Whether in the oceans or on dry land. If you ever tried to maintain a saltwater aquarium this would be obvious to you. Any significant change in salinity or temperature will kill whatever one has in a tank. We do not see one small layer of fossils. We see mountains made out of fossils. That could not have come from the flood. Do you understand this?

The fossils we see are not the fossils that we could get from a flood.

1. Billions of well-preserved fossils all over the Earth.

So what? Without a testable hypothesis these are by definition not evidence for a flood. This phrase will be repeated.

1. Sediment layers cover vast areas.

See above. Also the sediment is evidence against the flood due to the nature of it. There are formations with thousands of layers of dry and wet, where it dried out almost totally every year to the point of depositing gypsum or even halite. How many times did the flood dry up all of the way? You are not even looking skin deep at the sediments. When one uses a testable hypothesis they are evidence against a flood.

1. No slow and gradual erosion. Rapid deposition.

Oh moesss! I am sorry but you could not be more wrong. There are quite a few layers that can only be deposited slowly. Very find clay cannot be rapidly deposited. A flood leaves poorly sorted layers behind. And then even worse there are deposits like chalk. Extremely well sorted. Very tine marine life that at best grow slowly in calm warm waters. The cliffs of Dover refute the flood. Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. Without a testable hypothesis by definition you do not have evidence. All you have is an ad hoc explanation. That is worthless in the world of the sciences and the are almost always easily refuted as all of yours have been here.

As to rapid erosion that is laughable too. The only "rapid erosion" that is seen is from the rather rare post glaciation floods such as the Channeled Scablands of easter Washington, but again, there is a better non magic flood explanation:

Channeled Scablands

And here is a picture that cannot be explained with the Flood Model:

Would you like to know how we know that?

1. Over-sized valleys, water gaps, and vast planation surfaces.

You would need to be more specific for that one, but again, even if you do not do that without a testable hypothesis that is by definition not evidence.

Would you like to know what you need for scientific evidence? It would make you a better debater and you would not end up refuting yourself as you just did.

EDIT: You did a bit of a Gish Gallop here, you posted a bunch of claims without any support. so that means that refuting one would refute them all, but I just gave a quick explanation of how you were wrong in every single example. If you want to go into more detail or want more evidence on any of them I will be more than happy to discuss one failure of yours at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's from 1992. the pottery shards from the original links i provided were found in 2012.

Yes, but your source did not appear to be by an archaeologist of any sort. Or can you do a better job finding a proper link? You should be able to understand how Bible sources are gong to be so biased as to be worthless. In fact to even work for many Bible based practically cult level organization one often has to swear to not use the scientific method. When one does that one makes one's work worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ari argued against heliocentrism in a variety of ways. It is actually instructive to see how he was wrong in his arguments. They were not stupid; merely ignorant.

For example, in Ari's mind, the element 'Earth' had a natural tendency to move towards the center of the universe. To do otherwise would be 'violent' and non-natural. This is why the Earth formed at the center of the universe. The heavens were made lighter material, which is why the planets and stars were in the sky. They had a natural circular motion.

The point is that Ari's notion of physics was quite different than what was discovered later. He made some guesses that sounded right, but they were never tested. So, the idea that heavy things fall faster 'sounds right' even though it is simply wrong. The idea that the wind would be moving past at a thousand miles an hour because of the rotation of the Earth underneath 'sounds right' even though it is based on false physics.

The idea that if you drop a ball, the motion of the Earth would lead it to fall to the west of where you drop it 'sounds right' based on the way physics was understood (but never tested). This lead to the conclusion that the Earth could not be rotating.

The idea that if the Earth went around the sun, the stars would appear to swing back and forth over the course of a year is based on solid math. But it assumed that the stars are MUCH closer than they actually are (and the swinging back and forth *was* found eventually: it is parallax).

This is actually a very good lesson for those who use their intuitions alone to attempt to understand the universe. Without testing and observation, many ideas 'seem right' but are actually badly wrong.

I knew quite a bit about that of Aristotle. And I did not deny that he argued against heliocentrism, I just wanted to see the source. I see claims all of the time. But what was amazing to me was the claim that Aristotle "refuted" heliocentrism. By no means did he do that. He may have argued against it, but as you pointed out, without experimentation "common sense" can often mislead us.