The elijah story was just that, a story. I was using it as an example of god submitting to the scientific method and showing that he can be tested scientifically by the theology that christians subscribe too, I wasn't suggesting that it was in anyway true. Saying people didn't believe jesus is irrelevant because I am not submitting that those stories were factual. In my opinion, nobody believed him because he didn't do it.
Your bringing up multi-universal models and hypothesis only shows your inability to differentiate scientific thinking from religious thinking. Scientists don't "believe" we live in a multiverse, they posit the idea as a mathematical model to test it's explanatory power. It has a degree of explanatory power (at least on paper right now) and thusly get's a possibility of being considered true. If it eventually is found to have a high degree of explanatory power and also predictive power then it would be upgraded to a solid theory and would be considered as naturalistic as our universe. But as of now that hasn't happened, so it is only a model. I doubt James Randy would put it up for scientists working within a particular mathematical model because he would understand the difference between a model, a hypothesis, assigning a probability to something being true, and somebody saying "I can heal lepers with the bible". When somebody says "I can use quantum physics to read your mind!" I'm sure he'd let that person take the test, if somebody said "I can demonstrate that their are multiple planes of reality!" then that person would also have a shot at the million dollars. Because they are not working with a model to explore possibilities, they are making definite supernatural claims.
If a man could make a testable hypothesis as Elijah did (IE, Jesus has given me the power to heal terminal cancer with the bible), and then submitted that to rigorous scientific scrutiny (something along the line of having him do his thing to 100 patients, monitoring the results, and have a control group where the people think somebody is healing them but it's just an experienced magician that knows how faith healing works, compare the results over a period of time, then perhaps have the "real" healer blindfold himself and give him a koran, and then a bible, and then harry potter to test the specificity of the god, and then submit it for peer review to see if some one else can get a similar result by different means and explain how they did it in such a way that excludes that they were using jesus power to heal, or something to that effect. A good scientist could come up with a rigorous test), and passed those tests that would work as valid evidence for the hypothesis as much as anything would. According to Elijah, God would be able and willing to do this. It wouldn't convince everybody, but there are still people out there that think the sun moves around the earth, I think God could be given a pass for submitting sufficient evidence on human terms according to the scientific method.
This is a debate that atheists PZ Meyers and Jerry Coyne had recently. PZ says there could be no evidence for god on the basis that the word "god" is so poorly defined, and nobody can agree on exactly what it is or what qualities it possesses, or in what way it even interacts with the universe, it would be impossible to find evidence for it. It would be like testing for the existence of gobbledygook. Jerry Coyne (whom I'm more in line with on this topic) submits that while you may not be able to find evidence for "god" (as being poorly defined) you can hypothetically test and find evidence for a being that created life on earth and inspired the writing of a particular holy book, and has certain qualities such as being "all knowing", and has specific demands on the human race, that will face consequences for disobeying. Even if this being was actually an alien or something, it would be irrelevant because it still fits the definition and can be said to be the "god" people are referencing when they speak of the abrahamic god of the bible.