Infinite regress and debunking karma

[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.

[Angrboda]

If I'm not mistaken, some of the karmic religions hold to a past eternal world, which would violate the assumption that there had to be a first. Additionally, karma doesn't require there to be an inherited burden.

How many socks is this?

[Sicnoo0]

If I'm not mistaken, some of the karmic religions hold to a past eternal world, which would violate the assumption that there had to be a first.  Additionally, karma doesn't require there to be an inherited burden.

How many socks is this?

about tree fiddy

[Sicnoo0]

If I'm not mistaken, some of the karmic religions hold to a past eternal world, which would violate the assumption that there had to be a first.  Additionally, karma doesn't require there to be an inherited burden.

How many socks is this?

can you explain what inherited burden means and what a karma without it would look like

[Bucky Ball]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds in a past 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 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 don't know much about evolution of the pain response do you ?

[Sicnoo0]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds in a past 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 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 don't know much about evolution of the pain response do you ?

What does nociception and biology have to do with karma? 
I'm not understanding so please enlighten me

[Sicnoo0]

Evolution is complicated so I'm going to assume my understanding is incomplete or just wrong.

What I understand is this:

There is variety within a species. Because of the variety, some members will happen to be fit enough for the particular environment to reproduce, and others will not. Over the generations, this leads to certain varieties continuing to exist (and sometimes become even more exaggerated/distinct) while other varieties go extinct.

Thus, in some environments the only organisms that have lived on to reproduce are those which began with a predisposition for nociception. Those species that never had any form of nociception all died before they could reproduce. This is why it is very rare to find an organism that does not have any form of nociception.

[LinuxGal]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds in a past life.

According to Father Bryan, rubbing one out while staring at a poster of Lynda Carter is a misdeed, even if no one suffers. So I expect to suffer in my next life as payback for my countless adolescent misdeeds even though I never made Bob or Lynda or anyone else suffer at the time.

[Sicnoo0]

According to the theory of Karma, all suffering is caused by your own misdeeds in a past life.

According to Father Bryan, rubbing one out while staring at a poster of Lynda Carter is a misdeed, even if no one suffers. So I expect to suffer in my next life as payback for my countless adolescent misdeeds even though I never made Bob or Lynda or anyone else suffer at the time.

Good catch. I updated the post to specify that by misdeed I specifically mean an act that caused suffering to another entity

[Mister Agenda]

Doesn't karma allow for misfortune due to misdeeds you've done in your current life? That is, it might be visited on you for something you did a few years ago rather than something you did in a past life. Just wondering, don't know much about the ins and outs of how karma is supposed to work.