I don't think your post was necessarily anthropocentric; obviously I know that you know that life exists outside of humans. What I am saying is that you seem to only see the possibility for life in this universe in the combinations that you already identify with; carbon based chemical factories. There are plenty of other possibilities for the formation of animated matter, and their could be plenty of possibilities that don't require molecular structures at all.
No this is isn't something I asserted. I am aware of the possibility of other kinds of molecular life, silicon being one of the only realistic contenders, but I gave a couple of clear arguments why we might expect not to find any such radical departures from life as we know it in this universe (but certainly we would in others).

I'm not sure how non-molecular entities could form complex structures.
Like I said originally, I can't really argue because there isn't any evidence. The fact that we haven't found anything is not evidence that it isn't out there though, since it could just as easily be evidence that we don't know what we are looking for, or that we are not properly equipped to look in the first place.
Physical evidence may be hard to come by for some time to come, but I think we can make some good arguments. A lot of scientists don't like to discuss the kind of metaphysics (not in the traditional sense of the word... metauniversephysics would be better) I'm talking about because they use Occam's razor to cut anything outside of our universe out of existence, but I think that's rather extreme, and certainly unhelpful.