Dumb argument. His choice of analogies for "higher power" falls victim to the same problem theists come to when defining their own beliefs.

There is a reason we can't disprove existence or prove nonexistence and it isn't trivial.

You approach proof of negation but it will never converge as he says.

That being said, of course I'm an atheist, but you can't make exceptions for the rules of logic just because you want to come to your conclusion.