Kalām objections to endless divisibility invoke imagined cases involving ever smaller bodies or finer lines, sometimes appealing to touch, motion and the order of parts.
The philosophical reply distinguishes practical ability to cut a material body from the intelligibility of further division within its magnitude. A physical limitation on cutting is not automatically a demonstration of a metaphysical last unit.
The analysis must not confuse practical impediment with logical impossibility, or logical possibility with an accomplished physical event.