Perhaps if you're going to consider life after death, you might offer first some definition of "life" and of "death." I think if you trouble to do that, you will find yourself well along in your thinking. Certainly you will find you cannot think on this topic coherently until and unless you do.

I am speaking here of reincarnation. Life after death. There is no incoherent arguments and if so please do explain.

You want to argue reincarnation from the first law of thermodynamics? Demonstrate how energy is a form of life, or is alive. Observe "demonstrate" in the previous sentence. Add "energy" to the list of terms needing definition for this discussion. If my request seems onerous or harsh, recall this is a philosophy site, and recall that philosophy attempts to be thinking about thinking that is worthy of the name.

Yes by energy I mean the life force if you want of the human being. The soul being a certain form of energy it can't be destroyed or created but only transferred. Reincarnation could be possible (the transfer of energy from one body to another hence life after death).

You might take inspiration for thinking about the topic of the soul and reincarnation from the movie Marjorie Prime.

It's about the simulation of loved ones (as Artificial Intelligence) based on data collection and human memory.

Establishing the premise that energy is conservative and that the soul is a certain form of energy, could it be possible that life really do exist after death. — Paul24

No. This is a misunderstanding of how energy works. If you use your body energy to slide your palms together, the energy becomes heat energy and this energy is not part of your consciousness. Why would then the energy of the human body become a life after death? There is no support of this conclusion. The energy that leaves the body after death is just heat that disperses into the environment.

I do tend to answer yes to the question. — Paul24

Why? You haven't put forth an argument that is deductively solid so why answer yes when nothing supports it? I would like you to do a proper argument for this conclusion and if it isn't holding together you shouldn't answer yes to the question. Otherwise, it's not philosophy but spirituality and religion.

Yes by energy I mean the life force if you want of the human being. The soul being a certain form of energy it can't be destroyed or created but only transferred. Reincarnation could be possible (the transfer of energy from one body to another hence life after death). — Paul24

This is not an argument for reincarnation. You say that our energy is our life force, it's not, it's just energy, as any other. It has no consciousness and no information about our identity is passed on through it. Your argument fails within the first sentence since your premise isn't true, it's a misunderstanding of what energy is.

Further, you draw the conclusion that because you believe that energy is the soul, therefore the soul is being transformed after death. This is false since your first premise about energy being the soul is false.

Then you conclude that reincarnation could be possible because the soul, which is energy is transferred. This conclusion is based on two false premises.

You need true premises in order to conclude something to be true or even inductive. Energy is not the soul. You need to prove that there is a soul first, just saying energy is the soul is like saying energy is an apple, therefore we become an apple when we die. There is no connection since you conclude energy to be the soul based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what energy is.