Infinite regress and debunking karma

[LinuxGal]

D) Are there ways to debunk Karma even while believing that there was not a first ever sentient being to suffer?

I call Karma "Tao" but others call it the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Basically, if you invade the second largest country in Europe with an army hollowed out by systemic corruption and that country has a vast array of security guarantees from the most powerful military alliance on the planet,  you're gonna get your ass handed to you on a platter.  That's Karma.

[Bucky Ball]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds (any acts causing suffering to others) in a past life or this life.

Let's call the first being to ever suffer Bob.

According to the theory of Karma, Bob must have done something in a past life or this life which caused someone else to suffer.

This means that someone else suffered before Bob ever suffered, which contradicts our assumption that Bob was the first being to ever suffer. 

We started with two premises (Karma is real, there was a being who was the first to ever suffer) and arrived at a contradiction, which means that one of the premises must be false. 

I can't see a reason not to assume that there was indeed a first being to ever suffer, so therefore the premise which must be discarded is the premise that karma is real.

By a proof by contradiction I've shown that the theory of karma must be incorrect.

You've shown no such thing. 
Your premises are arbitrary and capricious, with no foundation laid for either, and in fact appear to both be random statements. 

Premise 1 Let's say Bob can fly. 
Premise 2 Some people say all birds can fly. 
Conclusion : Bob is a bird.

[Sicnoo0]

Karma is not a theory because there is no evidence for it and no testability in it.

But in its lack of rigor is also its ability to find ad hoc ways to avoid the objection you posed.

Bob may have done a misdeed, but the effect of his misdeed may be delayed and the suffering it causes to make it an misdeed is not experienced by his victims until he himself has been karmically punished for the misdeed.

I hadn't even thought about the delayed suffering situation. That would certainly be a way to make karma compatible with a first sufferer. That's actually a very large hole in my argumentation that a first sufferer implies that karma cannot be real. 

In that view, it's like if you're the first sufferer and the universe predicts that your actions will cause suffering, then the universe will arrange a future for you such that you end up suffering before any suffering has been experienced by your victim.

But yeah, Karma isn't a theory. It doesn't make testable predictions.

[Sicnoo0]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds (any acts causing suffering to others) in a past life or this life.

Let's call the first being to ever suffer Bob.

According to the theory of Karma, Bob must have done something in a past life or this life which caused someone else to suffer.

This means that someone else suffered before Bob ever suffered, which contradicts our assumption that Bob was the first being to ever suffer. 

We started with two premises (Karma is real, there was a being who was the first to ever suffer) and arrived at a contradiction, which means that one of the premises must be false. 

I can't see a reason not to assume that there was indeed a first being to ever suffer, so therefore the premise which must be discarded is the premise that karma is real.

By a proof by contradiction I've shown that the theory of karma must be incorrect.

You've shown no such thing. 
Your premises are arbitrary and capricious, with no foundation laid for either, and in fact appear to both be random statements. 

Premise 1 Let's say Bob can fly. 
Premise 2 Some people say all birds can fly. 
Conclusion : Bob is a bird.

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.

[Bucky Ball]

You've shown no such thing. 
Your premises are arbitrary and capricious, with no foundation laid for either, and in fact appear to both be random statements. 

Premise 1 Let's say Bob can fly. 
Premise 2 Some people say all birds can fly. 
Conclusion : Bob is a bird.

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.

[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.

[LinuxGal]

But yeah, Karma isn't a theory. It doesn't make testable predictions.

Karma isn't a theory in the same sense that evolution isn't a theory.  

Evolution is descent with variation culled by natural selection.  

The theory of evolution is a theory.

[Sicnoo0]

But yeah, Karma isn't a theory. It doesn't make testable predictions.

Karma isn't a theory in the same sense that evolution isn't a theory.  

Evolution is descent with variation culled by natural selection.  

The theory of evolution is a theory.

yeah, evolution is a process that happens in nature

a process is not a theory; I totally get that

freefalling is a process; gravity is a theory

[Belacqua]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds (any acts causing suffering to others) in a past life or this life.

Let's call the first being to ever suffer Bob.

According to the theory of Karma, Bob must have done something in a past life or this life which caused someone else to suffer.

This means that someone else suffered before Bob ever suffered, which contradicts our assumption that Bob was the first being to ever suffer. 

We started with two premises (Karma is real, there was a being who was the first to ever suffer) and arrived at a contradiction, which means that one of the premises must be false. 

I can't see a reason not to assume that there was indeed a first being to ever suffer, so therefore the premise which must be discarded is the premise that karma is real.

By a proof by contradiction I've shown that the theory of karma must be incorrect.

There are SO MANY variations in the different schools which teach about karma, that we probably can't find a definitive answer. I can think of two responses to your question which might be relevant.

First, we mustn't be overly determinist about karma. It doesn't cause absolutely everything that happens to us. So even before Bob did anything to deserve suffering, he may have just had bad luck. Again, there's variation in the schools, but I don't think they say that it's a one-to-one deal. In fact it would be unfair for us to assume that someone suffering now must have been bad before; we don't really know.

Second, bad karma can be accumulated from bad intent as well as from bad action. Like if you try your best to commit genocide but you don't bring it off, you still get bad karma. So it's possible that in a past life Bob tried but failed to cause suffering. He'd still get the hammer dropped on him later on. 

I'm not saying I believe all this. Just that it would address the logical dilemma you raise.

[Sicnoo0]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds (any acts causing suffering to others) in a past life or this life.

Let's call the first being to ever suffer Bob.

According to the theory of Karma, Bob must have done something in a past life or this life which caused someone else to suffer.

This means that someone else suffered before Bob ever suffered, which contradicts our assumption that Bob was the first being to ever suffer. 

We started with two premises (Karma is real, there was a being who was the first to ever suffer) and arrived at a contradiction, which means that one of the premises must be false. 

I can't see a reason not to assume that there was indeed a first being to ever suffer, so therefore the premise which must be discarded is the premise that karma is real.

By a proof by contradiction I've shown that the theory of karma must be incorrect.

There are SO MANY variations in the different schools which teach about karma, that we probably can't find a definitive answer. I can think of two responses to your question which might be relevant.

First, we mustn't be overly determinist about karma. It doesn't cause absolutely everything that happens to us. So even before Bob did anything to deserve suffering, he may have just had bad luck. Again, there's variation in the schools, but I don't think they say that it's a one-to-one deal. In fact it would be unfair for us to assume that someone suffering now must have been bad before; we don't really know.

Second, bad karma can be accumulated from bad intent as well as from bad action. Like if you try your best to commit genocide but you don't bring it off, you still get bad karma. So it's possible that in a past life Bob tried but failed to cause suffering. He'd still get the hammer dropped on him later on. 

I'm not saying I believe all this. Just that it would address the logical dilemma you raise.

I hadn't thought of this yet. It does indeed address the logical dilemma and I do appreciate that. Much to think over; thanks for pointing me in the right direction