I won't argue whether an irrational explanation can be true (since we cannot know that), but I will argue that this 4th view is irrational. That is, if the universe always existed in some form (e.g., false vacuum), then that means that the universe does not exist because of some logically necessary requirement.
That is, if the universe existed as a result of some logically necessary requirement, then that means there are normative rules that are true, hence the universe. If that is the case, those rules must be derived from a set of axioms. The axioms are true therefore the universe follows, hence the axioms cannot refer to the universe (i.e., the axioms logically proceed the reference to the universe), so the axioms are more primitive then the universe if an explanation for the universe is to be considered rational.
Since it is not true of this 4th view that something is more primitive then the universe, this view does not fit along a logical (rational) explanation. Therefore the 4th view is an irrational explanation.
Again, I am not saying that an irrational explanation is wrong per se. I will say, however, that if we should give an irrational explanation equal merit to a rational explanation (which I believe theism to be), then we have lost a key ingredient into our ability to explain the world given the success that rational explanations have provided up to this point.
Warm regards, Harv