There's a big difference between looking at the stars with the naked eye and looking at them with a telescope. The telescope was means by which Galileo made his discoveries. But why I am telling you something you already know?
Because you claimed that: "I can't actually see the earth rotating around the sun. From my perspective as a little bug crawling on the face of the earth, nothing would indicate how the heavenly bodies actually move relative to the earth and each other."
I am trying to show you that you were wrong and that you can, in fact, see that the Earth is rotating around the Sun and you can, through those observations calculate very accurately how the planets move about our star.
Of course we use technology of various kinds to help us, including when it comes to issues of science, but the fact that you've used technology, in this case a telescope, rather than merely your own eyes, detracts from the evidence not at all.
The point I am trying to make is somewhat more extensive than that and it comes down to what we consider to be evidence and how we know what we know, and why certain things are considered knowledge and other things are not.
For instance, how can we, with a reasonable amount of certainty know what the atmosphere of a planet that resides light-years away consists of?
How can we know that whales descended from animals that once lived on land?
How can we know that the earth is billions of years old, and not thousands, like some YECs believe?
I'm not saying that you are ignorant about these subjects, but I think it is important to understand how we know the things we know.