Evolution

[Angrboda]

1) Once you see God during your NDE you see that particular God that you believed during your life so for a Christian will be Jesus for a Buddhist Buddha, for an Hindu Shiva, Krishna or any of those hundreds Gods worship in their lives.
God is one of course but He will take a form that will be more familiar with the person who experience Him according to his-her previous culture.

Ignoring for the moment that this is a rationalization about NDEs rather than actual evidence from NDEs, this doesn't actually help you. First, you're now asserting that the perceptions experienced in an NDE do not accurately reflect the underlying reality. This undermine's your claim that the presence of a God in an NDE establishes reincarnation and karma as you've severed the link between the character of the God presented and his actual attributes or character. Regardless, in point #5 below you're attempting to assert the exact opposite, that the perceptions in an NDE are an accurate reflection of the underlying reality and not illusory. You can't have it both ways. You have to choose one or the other. The good news is that you're fucked either way you go. If you assert as you are here that the perceptions in an NDE do not in fact represent reality reliably, then we cannot reliably infer anything based upon the content of NDEs, as according to you, it's just a reflection of prior beliefs. On the other hand, if the perceptions in an NDE accurately reflect reality, as you try to argue in point #5, then you're back to having mutually contradictory accounts of reality. If those perceptions are accurate, then reality is inconsistent and absurd, and we again cannot rely upon the testimony of NDEs because it is not clear from the content of NDEs what version of reality is in fact the true one. So, the argument above doesn't help you. As a matter of principle, though, you need to decide which poison pill you want to swallow and stick with it.

This has been shown time and time again in thousand of NDEs.

No, this is a rationalization attempting to explain the inconsistencies in NDE accounts, and is based not on the content of the NDEs but is instead is just an example of advocates of the survival hypothesis trying desperately to salvage something out of the actual evidence. Even if you were to somehow dredge up an NDE account in which a god figure claimed, "I am not the real god, but simply an avatar of the one true God," you would simply be adding yet another God to the pile of incompatible gods. But you can't do that, because there is no NDE evidence for this view of the inconsistency; what you have is a rationalization based upon prior beliefs and a desperate desire to rescue the supposed reliability of NDE accounts. Unfortunately it fails because it undermines its own goal, that of establishing that NDE content is an accurate and reliable representation of an actual reality. Moreover, having effectively severed the link between a particular go figure and its alleged attributes, you can no longer determine whether Christian God or Yoga God is the underlying "one true god." So instead of furthering your attempt to demonstrate that karma and reincarnation exist, instead you've simply shot yourself in the foot. Way to go, Ace.

2) Many NDEs already proved that consciousness separate from the dead body by being able to see their dead body below or to see things or places where these people never been before. Witness confirmed the authenticity of the vision so obviously at the time of physical death the consciousness separate from the body.

Since I explained the problems with this in my last post, I'm going to be brief and refer you back to that post for clarification if needed. As a practical matter, the content of the OBE portion of an NDE can be explained multiple ways. It's consistent with consciousness leaving the body. It is also consistent with consciousness being capable of clairvoyance/clairaudience in which visual and auditory perception is extended outside of the body without consciousness actually leaving the body. There is nothing in the OBE/NDE content which can itself distinguish between the two explanations. You've chosen to champion the consciousness leaving the body hypothesis, as you should, given its necessary to your claims of reincarnation. However you haven't produced any evidence which would tip the balance in favor of your view, and against clairvoyance/clairaudience. Additionally, as noted in my previous post, the truthfulness of the OBE portion of an NDE doesn't demonstrate the truthfulness of other parts of an NDE (such as an experience of God). That simply doesn't follow. Moreover, as noted in my last post, perception of illusory content is often experienced with truthful, non-illusory content. Our experience of illusory perceptions is that the content is mixed, including one part truth and one part fantasy. So demonstrating the truth of part of an NDE doesn't establish the truth of the whole of the NDE.

I went over all this in great detail in my last post. What, did you sleep through most of it?

This by the way kill the atheist dogma that once you die is all over.

As noted in my last post as well as above, this is simply not true. You have yet to establish that consciousness even can leave the body, so your claim of victory here is premature.

3) Obviously you have never seen me to provide any evidence for my god outside of NDEs.
Why?
Because awareness in consciousness is not transferable.
I could transfer money to you but not my awareness that God exist and that make sense.
Why should you or anyone else benefit from my spiritual efforts?
It would be like giving a degree to someone who never studied.

I could really care less about what you claim about your personal experience, it isn't evidence of your claims of karma and reincarnation. From what I've seen, you reason like a pregnant cow, and any conclusions you draw based upon your own experience are not reliable. You can't even be trusted to reason profitably about the material presented in an internet post, much less demonstrated any more advanced acumen. If your mental abilities are defective, your belief that you have acquired truth is likely also defective. Deluded people cannot be trusted to determine the truth or falsity of their delusions.

Regardless, the point was that you have not established the reliability or truthfulness of the content of NDEs. Until you do, all your babbling about what NDEs do or do not show is quite beside the point. Until you establish their reliability, the only other evidence you can appeal to is empirical evidence about the real world. Since you apparently don't have any such evidence, and you've failed to provide credible evidence from NDEs, you're effectively left with squat. You have no evidence for the existence of karma and reincarnation, which is required if you're to be believed regarding your views on consciousness and evolution.

4) Entropy in the universe?
Guesses, guesses and more guesses.
In the meantime it make sense that constant food is needed for anything to be alive.  

Hahahahahaha! Entropy is established physics. There is no guessing involved. It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is testimony to the fact that you will deny established facts if they conflict with your religious/spiritual beliefs. That's pathetic. You whine about my justified dismissal of your prior arguments, and then you have the gall to attempt to dismiss established physics with a wave of your hand. You have a double standard and are a confirmed hypocrite.

Regardless, entropy is real, and the universe thus has had an abundant supply of energy throughout its history. This is simply more proof that you're a deluded crank. Denying entropy. Sheesh! How stupid.

5) Hallucinations are easily forgotten.
NDEs not, beside NDEs give spiritual strength while hallucination only give trouble.
Real NDEs spring from consciousness while hallucination from a brain in trouble but not dead yet.

As noted in my reply to point #1, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. I really don't care which line of bullshit you choose to subscribe to because neither one leads to the conclusion you desire. So commit to one or the other. Or don't. I don't care. If you choose to hang onto both it will simply show that your beliefs are not logically consistent, and your holding them is irrational. So pick a side, asshole.