Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this paper assesses the efficacy of the "Argument of Contingency" (Burhan-e Imkan-e Faqri)—an advanced form of the Essential Possibility Argument within Transcendent Philosophy—in responding to the major objections levied by Hume, Kant, and Russell against cosmological arguments. The study first elucidates the premises of the Argument of Contingency, which is founded on the "objective poverty" and existential dependence of all beings. It then systematically addresses five core Western critiques: the epistemological challenge to philosophical ontology; the alleged violation of the principle of causality; the conceptual coherence of a Necessary Being; the argument's dependence on a specific conception of predicative existence; and Russell's accusation of a fallacy of composition. The research concludes that the Argument of Contingency possesses a superior defensive capacity. Its strengths lie in its foundation in the inherent "poverty" of existence rather than abstract possibility, its non-reliance on causal chains, and its use of the concept of a "Self-Sufficient Being." By leveraging the insights of Transcendent Philosophy, it offers more robust solutions to these philosophical challenges, although it still shares a dependency on certain meta-rational premises with its predecessor.