Can God not be proved by any means presuming, If It exists it must be immanent?

If God is immanent, then with whatever means you are about to prove existence of god, is itself a form of God or a complete subset aspect of God itself (as God is immanent). Then, isn't the means of proofs, which one has already established as existent entities indirectly established one aspect of God as existence & attempting to prove God of different aspect presuming God is existing, implicitly?

One may argue -

One can establish an existence of clay by seeing a clay pot.

I would argue -

But you are not presuming clay to be immanent (or the one which alone exists, though in different forms); On presuming Clay is immanent which alone exists in different forms, isn't presuming existence of the Pot implicitly proved existence of clay because clay alone exists (clay is immanent)? Then, any attempt to prove existence of clay using clay pot is futile because one has already presumed clay pot as an existent (which is a form of clay). Further, the one who is attempting to prove is too a form of clay because clay is immanent. In other words, it would be like a situation where a clay vessel 1 is proving clay by using clay vessel 2.

Following above analogy, Proving God by any means presuming God is immanent (or it alone exists) seems circular reasoning to me because it is an attempt where a form of God is proving God by means which are also form of God.

So, Is it the case that one can't prove god by any means presuming if it exists, it must be immanent?

• The English is pretty broken here. Can you get someone to fix it? – virmaior Nov 10 '17 at 4:42
• @virmaior Okay, I will try. sorry. – Mr. Sigma. Nov 10 '17 at 4:44
• Ignore my last comment if you got a notification, I obviously misread what you were saying. But in general I agree with the sentiment that your analogy of the clay pot becomes really muddy and confusing towards the end and I am not sure that the question is very coherent as a result. – Not_Here Nov 10 '17 at 7:57