@Kellii, thanks for asking 
Let me respond to your question in parts.
No, I have not and will not make that argument exactly. But I will offer an argument for the existence of god(s) that looks an awful lot like Sophie’s argument for the existence of at least one light source.
For Sophie’s argument, all that is concluded is that there must exist something that is bright of itself, without needing another light to shine on it in order to be bright. Since it doesn’t need another light to make it bright, there is no need to go back further, no infinite regress.
Of course, if we wanted to account for the existence of light sources, or of anything else, then we would have a different argument, not Sophie’s. That’s something like what I will do later, and I will reason from the realization that there are many things that don’t have to exist but still are, as @Cognotic says very aptly
From this I will reason to the existence of something that is the sort of thing that necessarily is, and therefore does not need to be be explained or caused. Much as Sophie reasons from objects that aren’t bright of themselves, to the existence of objects that are bright of themselves because they emit their own light.