We start with the abstract, the obscure, the ambiguous… we shall start with the unknown, or the unknowable.
When allowing our imagination to conceptualize an Alien life form, specifically a more intelligent and advanced alien life form, we assume a number of things… one of which is:
That they are superior to us, or possess superior skills/capabilities/technology/intellect.
We secede from our absolute (superlative) thinking. Conceding that we are not the be all and end all of the universe, and certainly evidence more than suggests, by observing our placement within said universe, that we are not the proverbial ‘biggest dog in the yard’. In fact our ‘yard’ (solar system/galaxy) is kind of average.
We willingly accept the fact that there are things beyond our understanding (in so far as it applies to aliens) – that these would-be aliens would possess things beyond our comprehension. As famed Astrophysicist and cosmologist Neil Degrasse Tyson proposed; to an advanced alien race that had ‘evolved’ by a simple 1 percent (in the same evolutionary direction that we are more advanced than Apes on Earth), that the most intelligent human being would be on a similar intelligence level as an alien toddler.
And to think; if God (the supernatural appearing Alien to the natural world), a Creator that created all life as we know it - how much more intelligent is he (who actually invented our intelligence)?
Of course, logic follows that he would do things, act in ways beyond our understanding (hence the coined term - mysterious ways). Just like certain elements of a huge plan will not make sense to an individual who hasn't seen the entire picture.
So we're willing to entertain the idea of a superior intelligence, but only so far as it is convenient for us.
Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?
Because of our free will. In the first instance of alien encounters, we as a human race were not subject to them, we were still free to rebel against them and retain our proverbial independence, because their interaction with us was limited (and subjective/proposed/imagined).
But in the case of God, we are all suddenly confronted and accountable, we are faced with ultimatums, with consequences and our own mortality… the interaction with a would-be creator is naturally more personal and divisive. You cannot hide behind the collective. You cannot hide at all. The truth is exclusive (hence: specified, unique, absolute - not admitting of other things... so it the truth is by it nature: DIVISIVE).
We as people don’t like to be governed. And to acknowledge God or a God-like Creator figure, leads us directly to that dynamic – meaning we are to submit to such a figure… and that usually means making some changes in our lives.
So that’s where the line in the sand is, in making the decision: to be or not to be…
To acknowledge God, or not.
And in our (sometimes) desperation to absolve ourselves from this issue we’ve gone to inordinate lengths to justify ourselves, trying (unsuccessfully) to discredit any and all forms of evidence that would inform our choice, preferring to construct elaborate alternatives to avoid the “God issues” altogether… Simply because it suits our agenda, our yearning for absolute freedom, because in many minds, submitting to God means forfeiting freedom.
The truth is though, that you cannot have true freedom without rules. Because no rules, implies no boundaries, no division between good or bad, no restrictions, no accountability, no consequences… because absolute freedom is clinically the definition of chaos.
And this is Man’s ultimate goal, to have dominion over himself, to call God a human construct and place him neatly into an imaginary “box” of our own making, and to live in a world where… anything goes. Or at the very least to live in a world abiding by only his own rules.
The irony is: we are not so much putting God in a ‘box’, but rather ourselves, attempting to insulate ourselves from any Godly notions.