Infinite regress and debunking karma

[Sicnoo0]

Statement 1: karma (as described by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains) exists 
Statement 2: there existed a sentient being who suffered before any other sentient being suffered

Premise 1: statement 1 and statement 2 cannot both be true 
Premise 2: statement 2 is true
Conclusion: statement 1 is not true

Your conclusion that Bob is a bird does not follow from the premises you provided. My conclusion does follow from the premises I provided.

Wrong. The conclusion could possibly be true according to my premises. 
Your definitions never included a "sentient being" which is why I attempted to get you to define what a "being is". You didn't. 

You failed. You're off my list. Life is way too short to mess with fools like you.

If a conclusion "could possibly be true", that does not mean it follows from your premises. That just means it is not incompatible with your premises being true. I already said that a "being" is what the dictionary defines a "being" to be.