There is a lawfulness in nature which is the rightful subject of scientific scrutiny. You can account for an awful lot of what we see when you know the rules.
But did the meaningless void intend on producing humanity?
I doubt it. Efficiency was pretty low, if we were the point. There's a pretty high overhead not only in space useage but in time useage. Here's a timeline of just Earth history, never mind the 10 billion or so years of the history of the universe before that.
Vertebrate history is crowded down near the end, there. Human history is a blip just before the closing credits.
Did it set the properties governing the universe?
We only have one example of a universe. Whether another universe would have the laws of physics observed in ours is not clear to me.
Did it say,"I love it when a plan comes together like this?"
No, and there's a relentless anthropomorphizing strawman quality to your arguments. You criticize science and scientists for lapsing into such relic language to explain themselves even when they actually reason along different lines. But animism seems to be all you do. You utterly miss the gather-facts/form-hypotheses/gather-more-facts elements of what science is doing.
You say it's not about semantics, but when you take the semantics away there's nothing left.
... Because a mindless and empty void cannot produce intelligence, no matter how many years and how many monosyllabic terms you try and shovel into it.
Problem One, False Premise: It was essentially never empty or a void, although it was certifiably mindless when the flash of what we now call the cosmic microwave background was emitted about 300K years after the big band. It was a not-quite-perfectly uniform hot gas of hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium, cooling as it expanded.
Problem Two, Begging the Question: When did you show that non-intelligent life cannot produce intelligence under natural selection?