> The only examples we have of "intelligence" are organic in nature.

High-abstraction category-words such as "intelligence" are not fundamental properties of nature. They're made by man. Which means we currently happen to define intelligence in a way that we primarily observe in organic objects. So there's some circular reasoning in your argument. If we look at all the more fundamental building blocks such as information-processing, memory, adaptive algorithms, manipulating environments then we know all of them already are implementable in non-organic systems.

It is not a blind belief decoupled from reality. It is an argument based on the observation that the building-blocks we know about are there and they have not been put together yet due to complexity. There also is the observation that the "putting together" process has been following a trajectory that results in more and more capabilities (chess, go, partial information games, simulated environments, vision, language, art, programming, ...), i.e. there's extrapolation based on things that are already observable. Unless you can point at some lower-level piece that is only available in organic systems. Or why only organic systems should be capable of composing the pieces into a larger whole. I am not aware of any such limiting factor.

Just like "suspending" objects in air was possible and self-propelled machines were possible, even if not self-propelled flight had not yet been done at that time.