>>2096
>A. He can already fulfill all his plan right here on Earth.
How do we know what God's plans are?
>C. The distances involved are utterly insurmountable.
I don't consider that to be the case. Even assuming the extraterrestrial hypothesis is true, which I'm not necessarily convinced of (at least in the nuts-and-bolts '50s sci-fi movie sense), they don't need to be showing up on Earth every other Tuesday. We also wouldn't know how long they've been here. If they've been here since the '40s, I think they've probably also been here much longer than that. Even with all the hoaxes and tall tales that newspapers were full of back then, I believe the mystery airship wave of 1896-97 at its core could have very well have had the same origin as the "flying saucer" phenomenon that rose to prominence decades later. They could even predate humanity or maybe even life on this planet. We also don't know where they'd be coming from even if they are extraterrestrials.
I’m not knowledgeable about science or anything though.
>However, they are more-commonly called demons (being fallen angels).
The problem with that is that it's working backwards from a particular religious perspective and trying to fit a wider phenomenon into a narrow category based on the beliefs of ancient people who didn't have the same knowledge available that we do now. I think it's much more likely that the inverse is the case: Concepts like angels and demons are the result of ancient people trying to explain encounters with non-human intelligences from within a specific cultural framework.
There are also plenty of positive experiences reported among people who allegedly encounter whatever the aliens are to the point where the demon experience doesn't fit. I do think there's manipulation going on in at least some of the cases, but there are still many reports of beings who don't seem the least bit interested in coercion. It seems much simpler to me to believe that there are malevolent beings, benevolent beings, and everything in between while discard the baggage of any particular religious tradition. That's not to say that ancient traditions couldn't be useful as a rough means of trying to determine truth through converging claims across time and space, but I think it’s doubtful that any of those belief systems offers a totally accurate ontology.
I think even modern UFO lore has to be taken with a big grain of salt. The whole topic has been filled with cranks, grifters, hoaxers, and government disinfo and manipulation since the ‘40s. Linda Moulton Howe might be gullible and all, but I think she was right to call the topic a hall of mirrors with a quicksand floor. I still believe there’s ultimately a there there, but we have to look at the phenomenon from a bird’s-eye view and take a fuzzier, more agnostic approach to it and its many facets.