THE CRITICAL PROBLEM
The 'critical problem' with past philosophies and past philosophers is 'VERIFIED KNOWLEDGE'. In the past, philosophers had little to work with, so they had to make a lot of GUESSES concerning reality, which have almost invariably turned out to be wrong (which can be expected, reality being as complicated as it is, and guesses without verified knowledge being so open-ended, limited only by one's imagination).

FOOLISH FADS
So any 'return' to past philosophies will be a foolish fad, even if an academic foolish fad (academia not being immune to foolish fads).

ON SUFFICIENT DEFINITIONS/PERSPECTIVES
You are beginning with an insufficient perspective, and thus definition, of inductive and deductive reasoning. Consider the following definitions:

Deductive Reasoning: takes data from the many cases and applies it to one case.

Inductive reasoning: takes data from one case and applies it to many cases.

Note that they BOTH assume the future will follow the rules of the past. The value in inductive reasoning is that it identifies new possibilities (which is a critical phase in science). The value in deductive reasoning is that it is used to verify possibilities (another critical phase in science).

Example: A rubber ball bounces on a cement sidewalk. Using inductive reasoning, you will propose that since one ball bounces on a cement sidewalk, then ALL rubber balls will bounce on ALL cement sidewalks, From here, you then apply deductive reasoning to verify this, and perhaps broadening your verifications (and thus your conclusion) to include variations - such as in weather or gravity.

CONCLUSION
You can now see that both modes of reasoning are mere tools, and it is in how adeptly they are applied that determines their results, and thus their value (toward the survival of higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, just to give you an objective value from which to apply value judgements).

It is not a paradox, it is a question of rules, lack of adequate real-world parameters, and Infinity:

Rule: OVER-STEPPING: If you are allowed to OVER-STEP point B, then, once beyond it, it can be said that you 'reached it' at some point in time, however infinitesimally short in duration.

THE ROLE OF INFINITY: Since the 'line' between Point A and Point B is 3D (which it has to be in order to physically exist, and we ARE talking about physical reality), then you may have missed it along any dimensional axis, if your measurements get small enough. If you allow a tolerance of say 3ft, then the determination can be made.

LACK OF DEFINITIONS: First 'you' hasn't been defined, so the 'paradox' is rendered 'silly'. If the point is minuscule, say just a fraction of a millimeter, and 'you' are a circumference of two feet, then it can be easily determined if 'any of you' is 'on' the point - say if an outside observer cannot see the point through your shoes. Note that this assumes that you are allowed to 'OVER-STEP' the point (meaning part of your shoe has 'gone beyond' the point.

THE LIMITING RULE and another LACK OF DEFINITION: If, on the other hand, you are NOT allowed to over-step the point, then the statement is true (and not a paradox), given infinite regression (that you will never 'reach' Point B). If an adequate parameter is given, say a 'zone' of adequacy (for instance, if you are 'close enough' for all practical purposes), then a determination can be made. So the real problem (in the real world) is in the lack of parameters. As for the math, you are using...

THE WRONG MATHEMATICAL TOOL: It is true that by halving the distance ad infinitum you will never reach Point B (nor will any part of you ever 'cross' it), so that presents no paradox in itself.

CONCLUSION
The 'paradox' is a good example of posing a real-world question (that which is beyond pure theoretical math) with a lack of real-world parameters.

You Began With the Wrong Perspective
You are looking at the problem with the wrong perspective. You should be weighing the body 'verified' knowledge ('good' data) against the theory proposed. They are inversely related - the less good data you have, there will be a higher number of theories still viable. The extreme cases are having no good data, where any theory is still viable, to overwhelming good data, where only one theory remains standing.

Concerning God and the Afterlife and 'Arguments'
Now you can see where your 'arguments' fit into the larger scheme of things (the inverse data/theory relationship). With absolutely no data supporting God or an Afterlife, any theory about the two is still viable. Conversely, with the mountains of existing data against God and an Afterlife (exposing all religions as the preposterous imaginings of primitive minds many times over), then your 'arguments' are reduced to twisted exercises in delusion.

A Note on 'The Prudent View' Concerning Broader Survival
Concerning an afterlife, and concerning the survival of life in a harsh and deadly universe, it is 'prudent' to assume that there isn't an afterlife - meaning it is prudent to assume that we have to 'work' for 'eternal life' (which is really 'eternal higher consciousness') (and though 'eternity' itself renders that impossible, rendering it a 'continuous struggle') (what I call 'The Great Struggle'). To 'believe' that you will be 'handed' an afterlife without any effort on your part is, it can be prudently assumed, 'suicide'.

Conclusion
Know 'where' your 'argument' (or 'theory') stands in relation to the amount of good data concerning the issue. If there is sufficient good data (verified knowledge, remember) that has already refuted your proposed argument, and you are not aware of it, then you can expect negative reactions from those that are aware of such data (and its implications toward your proposal) - some will be patient with you, hot heads will not; juveniles will take the cheap shot and ridicule you for your unawareness of existing verified knowledge.

METAPHYSICS AS PROVIDING EXCUSES
You are on the right path concerning the 'usefulness' of organized nonsense. Take astrology (for an example of 'organized nonsense') - even if you know it is all pure make-believe, what it gives you are 'excuses'. For example, if it says that your 'sign' is compatible with the sign of person of your romantic interest, you will suspend disbelief in order to have an 'excuse' to go after that person of your romantic interest.

METAPHYSICS AND THE 'IS' GAME
Those who create metaphysics delude themselves into thinking that their 'pure speculations on reality' (which is the real definition of 'metaphysics') are actually 'correct' with no need for further investigation or verification. I call it the 'IS GAME' - when you claim that your speculations are correct, for whatever knavish reasons (and there are many).

METAPHYSICS AS ENTERTAINMENT
In my 'Pinwheel of Life' I classify (as a useful tool) human endeavors into four categories: those of Higher Consciousness (addressing broad/far-ranging concerns, such as securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe), those on an Animal Level (local/immediate concerns, such as food, shelter, social security, and mindless sex), Enlightened Procreation (which, on a higher-consciousness level includes love, romance, and nurturing), and Rest & Relaxation (which we all need from time to time).
In light of the vast amount of verified knowledge that we now have (but which is still largely ignored), metaphysics has been reduced to 'entertainment', of which art and creativity also serve (among their other capacities). For example, we can, while rejuvenating, 'lose ourselves in' (aiding 'rest') Greek Mythology or Eastern Mysticism, resting the analytical half of our brain (which did the 'hard work' such as verifying hypotheses, guesses, and possibilities) while lightly exercising our creative half (which does the 'fun work', such as generating imaginative and creative hypotheses, guesses, and identifying possibilities).

The mistake you are making right from the start is in thinking that trite platitudes (and narrow maxims and obsolete adages and terrible tenets) are worthy of the status of 'life-guiding philosophy', when they are not (being too weak - because they do not ask or answer the hard questions about themselves, beginning with the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life, that of "Why Bother?" (which, you must admit, must be answered before you even begin to address the lesser Great Questions of Life). What you should be seeking is mankind's first Objective Value (or 'universally-accepted value' or 'ultimate value' or 'core value') - and I say 'first' because one has never been identified (I've given the world three, but who listens to me?). From there, you will have an associated Objective Goal (i.e. to secure the Objective Value), and now having a goal, you will be able to distinguish good from evil (their being goal-driven), and, having that clear ability (for the first time in human history, not being obscured in a haze of subjectivity), you will have a solid foundation for building worthwhile individual lives and relevant civilizations (again, for the first time in human history - with a clue).