(3) is impossible and (4) is a dodge.<quoted text>
There argument for a multiverse is this:
The universe exists, and it appears to be fine tuned to support life and consciousness. Only four hypotheses that I can come up with can account for that:
 Our universe was intelligently designed.
 One universe formed from nothing, or has always existed (the eternally banging-crunching universe) and just happens to support life and consciousness.
 Multiple universes of varying types formed spontaneously from nothing, and those capable of supporting consciousness do. This is one of them.
 An unconscious source from which universes arise exists. We can call this the multiverse.
The first two are the least likely.
A conscious, omnipotent, omniscient god is the least likely thing to exist uncreated and undesigned. Lesser gods are more likely, but still much less likely than an unconscious entity (a multiverse).
And a very lucky single roll of the is also very unlikely, like a god. The evidence for the bang-crunch hypothesis, incidentally, took a big hit with the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It may never crunch.
Neither of these hypotheses can be ruled out on the basis of being extremely unlikely, but they both fall to the bottom of the list because of it.
The best explanation is that there are uncountable numbers of universes, which is likely if they arise by an unconscious process. Whatever process accounts for the one would be expected to yield many (That is true for gods as well. Whatever could yield one should yield many - the reason there are so many of everything from atoms to people to galaxies).
If infinite universes can arise without a source, then we don't need the multiverse, and we get option . I can't rank either  or  as the more likely of the two. Nor can I rank  as more or less likely than . But I can put both  and  far ahead of both  and .
 and  are most likely, and  and  are least likely. That is the
Incoherent? Hardly. It may in fact be impossible, but the idea is very clear, and cannot be declared impossible at this time. That makes the idea coherent.
No special pleading please. Spontaneously arising universes are more likely than spontaneously arising gods. An infinitely existing multiverse is more likely than an infinitely existing god. Simply calling the hypotheses that contradict your faith based preferences incoherent won't do.
Once again, I want to point out the differences in our ways of thinking, and the differences in the kinds of ideas our two minds generate. My ideas don't require tortured sophistic defenses or special pleading. I say that that is an indication that they are more in tune with the reality, which is exactly what you would expect the difference to be between thought slavishly devoted to evidence and reason, which ideas are likely to map reality more accurately, and the thoughts of a mind that permits itself to wander where it desires, and is then forced to rationalize its choices. One set of arguments ring true, the other the opposite.
And yes, I realize that you see it in reverse. I understand. Faith does that, too. And because of that, I expect this argument to be rejected out of hand by you. But I am writing to a larger audience, much of which shares my intellectual values - reason and evidence over faith and rationalization - and I wanted to make the point about the differences between faith based thought and thought absent faith explicitly.
The reasoning for why this is so has nothing to do with faith.
Your allowance that either could be explanatory IS a reflection of faith.
It is your faith that something can arise from nothing (3), and to displace the problem is to explain the problem (4).
(2) is impossible via the same reasoning, so if we are limited to your 4 hypotheses (your call), the answer has to be (1).