Why do you get to make the answers to this multiple choice test? Your refutation of the first option (cannot spring from nothing) is also a refutation of the fourth option which you believe to be true. If nothing cannot produce anything, why does that theory go out the window for God? What did God spring out from? Why is it easier to assume that it is impossible that the universe came into being without the need for a God but it is possible that a God sprang out of nowhere without the need for a precursor? What was God doing before-hand?
I agree with you however that the third option should not even be included, as it gets us nowhere...
If you have another possibility for the origin of the universe, let's have it.
God isn't nothing - He is something and someone - the causative agent (remember cause and effect?). How do you figure God is nothing? He is nothing because you refuse to admit his existence! It is a personal philosophical belief on your part - you presuppose God's non-existence, and then assume everything came from natural and material causes. But no matter how many times you state it, the fact will remain that "God" and "Nothing" are not synonymous. On the other hand, nothing is really nothing - it is not anything at all. Since nothing is not anything at all, it cannot produce anything. (simple logic).
Your misunderstand the nature of God. God didn't spring from anything. He is the creator - self-existent and eternal, outside of time. Your refusal to consider that possibility simply shows that you have a bias against God. If God created all natural laws, that makes God lead scientist.