I could not find anything better than this on Dictionary.com
It says that 'for' in such context has been used as a conjunction meaning 'because, since'. It's old usage of the word 'for'.
[Middle English, from Old English; see per in Indo-European roots.]
Usage Note: 'For' has been used as a conjunction meaning "because, since" for over 1,000 years. It is familiar in many famous quotations, from the New Testament's beatitudes (Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth, Matthew 5:05) to Shakespeare's sonnets (For thy sweet love rememb'red such wealth brings / That then I scorn to change my state with kings).
Today this use of for is rare in speech and informal writing, and it often lends a literary tone or note of formality. ยท Like the word so, for can be viewed as either a subordinating or a coordinating conjunction, and it has been treated variously as such. It has the meaning of a subordinating conjunction, since it clearly subordinates the clause that follows it to the previous clause or sentence. But like a coordinating conjunction, for has a fixed position in the sentence, and its clause cannot be transposed to precede the superordinate clause containing the main idea. It is ungrammatical in present-day English to say For they shall inherit the earth: blessed are the meek. Perhaps because of this ambiguity in function, for is treated variously with regard to punctuation. Sometimes it begins a dependent clause and follows a comma, and sometimes it begins an independent clause (as if it were a conjunctive adverb like moreover) and follows a semicolon or period (when it is capitalized as the first word of a new sentence). All treatments are acceptable in standard usage. The difference is really one of emphasis: starting a new sentence with for tends to call more attention to the thought that it introduces.
So,
I didn't go to school today for I felt ill.
is not weird because you want to say that you did not go to school today because/since you felt ill.
The present perfect conceptualizes the past thing from the point of view of its relation to the present.
Having eaten pumpkin pie, I know what it tastes like.
My present knowledge is the result of eating pumpkin pie at some point prior to "now". The eating might have taken place 1 second ago or 1 year ago or 10 years ago. I might have some unfinished pie on a plate in front of me. All we know from the tense is that I am someone who ate some pumpkin pie at some time in the past.
With "having lived", if you said this and only this:
Having lived in India, I am familiar with the cuisine.
all that can be concluded from the statement is that you lived in India at some period in the past. It could be last week, or last year, or for the past 20 years. You are a person who can truthfully say "I lived in India". You might live there still.
Now, let's see if we complicate things by adding "all my life".
Having lived in India all my life, I am familiar with the cuisine.
All my life does not exclude the present moment; nor does it necessarily include it. You can easily say, as someone who has emigrated to Antarctica, "I lived in India all my life. But now I live here at the South Pole. Aren't the freezing temperatures refreshing?"
So, we cannot conclude from the statement whether you are living in India now, or have moved elsewhere. All we know is that you are a person who can claim to be someone who, at some time in the (recent) past, had been living in India since birth. all my life does not exclude the present but it does guarantee it: a person who had been born in India and who had lived there until very recently, could say "Having lived in India all my life..."
So, yes, you can say "having lived" whether you have moved away, or you still live there.
Best Answer
We can use present simple to talk about a planned or scheduled event in the future.
This could be simple present meaning it's happening now and going on all day, or it could be a planned event that will happen today- to be planned, it must be later than now.
Inserting after ages into the middle of this sentence does not really work. It would be better to say:
Moving on to the the past simple/past continuous question:
This is talking about an event in the past. It's over now, so you should use present simple.
You would normally only use past continuous if you were in the middle of one thing when something else happened, or it was planned but was cancelled. For met/was meeting:
And for felt/was feeling...